________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT June 20, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 25 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... REPORT CARD ON EDUCATION ISSUES It's over. The first year of the 2005-06 legislative session ended not with a bang, as threatened, but with a whimper. The governor, who'd promised a veto of the state budget because of an issue involving the state colleges, called the legislature back into session where the budget bill was tweaked, passed, agreed to by the governor, and everyone went home. Numerous small education issues were considered this session, but the biggest education challenge was the continued movement to expand the public system to include universal preschool -- publicly-funded pre-K programs offered for "free" to rich and poor alike. This initiative failed to move in the House last year and failed to move at the State Board of Education level. It was considered in bill form (S.132) again this year but didn't come out of committee (more on that later). However, the Senate Education Committee Chairman, Don Collins (D-Franklin), did successfully insert early education funding language into the budget bill, essentially doing a run around the usual legislative committee process, instituting an expansive new program with a few sentences. The early education initiative had several serious problems: 1. By expanding publicly-funded preschool to cover ALL children, funds for at-risk children are stretched even thinner. At-risk children (from low income families or those with limited English proficiency) are those who need the most help. Well-to-do families don't need to have their children's pre-K subsidized by the state and local taxpayer. 2. Taxpayers could now see their education taxes increase. Declining school enrollments in Vermont should have eventually led to lower tax bills. The expansion of the public school system into two more grades now means tax bills will remain the same or increase over the years. 3. Private day care and early ed providers will now have to compete with "free" services offered by local public schools. Most of these providers are women, which means their entrepreneurial businesses could be placed at risk.  A note of explanation is in order here -- defenders of public pre-K like to say that daycare is not the same as early ed. This might be true from the providers' perspective but it is not necessarily true from the consumer's. In other words, parents who are looking for child care for their three and four-year-olds will be attracted to the "free" public services whatever they're called, and the local daycare/childcare providers will lose out.  Defenders of the current initiatives also like to claim that private providers were included in the various bills under consideration. As opponents have pointed out again and again, the inclusion of private providers in the bill was not meaningful -- it rested on forming "collaborations" and contracts with the public system, and was not directed by the will of the parent. Some well-connected private providers WOULD probably be able to get in on the publicly-funded action. Many would not. 4. Claims that universal preschool will close the "achievement gap" between rich and poor students are overstated. Most studies show that gains from early ed programs wash out over time. Closing the achievement gap will require more focus on early gateway skills and other initiatives at the K-12 level. Here's our take on the grades all the players deserve regarding the early education issues during this past session: THE ADMINISTRATION: C MINUS Governor Jim Douglas, unfortunately, played into the usual perception of Republicans as people who don't care about education. Early education was the pressing concern this year and often the Administration looked as if it were watching to see which way the wind was blowing, instead of staking out a course and leading. The Administration, at the outset of the legislative session, supported the Building Bright Futures program that would have set up community assessments for preschool programs and included a weak provision calling for private as well as public funding. But it was never clear if the administration was serious about this program or merely giving it lip service as a counterbalance to S.132, the early ed bill that set up universal public preschool. The administration was well aware of all of the concerns about S.132 and similar programs. The tax implications in particular played to the governor's strength as a fiscal conservative. Despite some hard work on the part of a few key administration officials, however, the governor himself was largely missing from the debate. Here's the speech he could have given if he'd chosen to veto the budget bill because it contained the early education language: "No one is more concerned than I am about the ability of all children to access the American dream. That dream begins with a good education. At-risk children in particular -- those from low-income families and for whom English is a second language -- need our help the most. By instituting a UNIVERSAL preschool program that funds free preschool for rich and poor alike, we are placing targeted funding in jeopardy. I will not allow the legislature to create a program that could dilute funding possibilities for at-risk children.  "I am more than willing to work with the legislature on crafting a preschool program that targets at-risk children and allows their parents to find the most suitable approved early education program for them -- including ones in their own homes. But I won't sign a blank check for programs that will increase the burden on local taxpayers, place unfair pressures on private early education providers, and spread money intended for at-risk children among those who are financially capable of supporting preschool programs on their own." Instead of this speech, the governor focused on the state colleges issue, threatening a veto of the budget over that and not over the early education program. While the administration did include strong objections to the early ed part of the budget bill in a letter to the legislature, the fact remains that Governor Douglas did not match those strong words with action or even a threat of action.  SELECTED LEGISLATORS: MIXED GRADES Senator James Condos (D-Chittenden): D Let's start with the premise that Sen. Condos, like all those involved in the early ed debate, probably cares deeply about children and education. That doesn't mean his approach is the right one. As chairman of Senate Education during the last session, Sen. Condos was the prime mover behind S.166, the early education bill that passed the Senate and failed to move in the House, then was reincarnated as S.132 this year. Along the way, Sen. Condos has been dismissive of those who raise concerns about his early education initiatives, sometimes even characterizing critics as "attacking" him and "spreading misinformation" about the bill. At the same time, Sen. Condos himself has sometimes circulated misleading, or at least confusing information. For example, as reported earlier, supporters of S.132 (including Sen. Condos) like to claim that private providers are not at risk under this bill. But this isn't true. Private providers who aren't willing or able to form collaboratives or contracts with public school districts are most definitely at risk once public schools start offering similar programs for free. Unless money follows the child, that risk does not go away but only increases -- especially if some private providers get contracts and the private provider community becomes split between those who are fortunate enough to secure contracts and those who don't. The unlucky ones won't have much clout if their colleagues are content with the status quo. As one reader pointed out to us, there were many private kindergarten providers in his town before public schools started getting into the kindergarten business. It is counterintuitive to think that wouldn't happen in the Pre-K arena when public schools can use public money to set up Pre-K programs, competing for customers with an incredible advantage over private providers -- the public programs will be free. Sen. Condos refuses to acknowledge these concerns and paints those who raise them as "attacking" him and spreading misinformation. In addition, Sen. Condos has been disingenuous about his own specific role in the entire kerfuffle over early education funding language being inserted into the budget bill. In an email responding to an inquiry from a citizen on the topic, Sen. Condos wrote: "I DID NOT EVEN VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT that placed it (early education bill language) in H.516 (the budget bill). (Emphasis in the original.) It is our understanding that Sen. Condos did, in fact, vote for the budget bill that contained the early education funding language. He did NOT vote for an amendment offered by Sen. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland) that at least tried to communicate the legislature's intent to have public schools work with private providers. His claim to the contrary is confusing at best and misleading at worst. Is he saying he's proud he voted against language that attempted to provide some protections for private providers? Or is he saying he didn't vote to include early ed language in the budget bill when he did vote for that? And will he view these questions as personal attacks? Sen. Don Collins (D-Franklin) - Incomplete Sen. Collins perplexes us. As chairman of the Senate Education Committee, he was instrumental in pushing for S.132, the early education bill. Our guess is he had the votes on the committee to put the bill out on the floor. And, because S.166 passed last year in the Senate, he probably also had the votes for victory in the full Senate. In the House, the picture was rosier than last year, with a majority on House Education and in the House in general probably sympathetic to S.132. Therefore, its chances were moderately good, even very good, in the House as well. Why then did Sen. Collins not move S.132 out of committee? Why did he instead sneak language authorizing the drawdown of Education Funds for early education into the Appropriations committee's consideration of the budget bill? We're still scratching our heads over that one. We are speculating, but the only explanation we can come up with is that he was rattled by some opposition to S.132 from private providers but eager to put a stamp of unambiguous legal authority on the current practice of drawing down Education Funds for early education. Inserting the funding language in the budget bill could have flown below the radar if not for a keen observation of legislative goings-on. Sen. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland): A Although she's only a freshman, Sen. Wilton was skillful and attentive her first year serving on a committee where her viewpoint was in the minority. She diligently listened to concerns from private early ed/childcare providers over S.132 and paid equal attention to issues raised by groups that supported the bill. Her goal seemed to be to find ways to fix S.132 so that it wouldn't harm private providers and yet would still provide services to those who needed them. When her committee chairman, Sen. Collins, inserted early education language into the budget bill, Sen. Wilton, along with her colleague Sen. Robert Starr (D-Essex/Orleans), helped craft and introduce an amendment to at least signal to public schools that the legislature wanted them to work with private providers. She was successful in getting this amendment through the Senate Education committee at the last minute and then securing a 20-7 vote for it on the floor of the Senate. In the interest of full disclosure, the editor of this newsletter was a supporter of Sen. Wilton's campaign for office and Sen. Wilton herself is on the board of Vermonters for Better Education, the publisher of this newsletter. But that doesn't change a whit the list of her accomplishments and efforts in education this year.  THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: A MINUS The State Board shows promise and we have modest hopes they'll continue to grow into their position as the "boss" of the Commissioner of Education, and thus the Vermont Department of Ed itself. Because Vermont's governor doesn't appoint the Commissioner, the State Board is the organization that oversees the Commissioner and VDOE, holding them accountable to the people who pay the education bills.  In past years, there's been a tendency to rubber stamp most of what came to the board from the VDOE. Not this year. The board showed some real spunk when it balked at approving an expansion of the K-12 system through rules pushed by the Commissioner and VDOE. The board also directed the VDOE to draft a public school choice plan which was then introduced in the legislature.  Earlier, the SBOE was instrumental in instructing the VDOE to post teacher licensure suspensions and revocations on their web site. All these SBOE actions are thoughtful and responsible initiatives with a common thread - making education more responsive to the average Vermonter. And they all go against the powerful Education Lobby - a sign that the board is willing to tackle tough issues even in the face of special interest pressure. Upcoming challenges, however, will be daunting. One of them will be how vigorously the SBOE monitors the VDOE's work through the Commissioner. While the board's public school choice bill was introduced in the legislature this year, how hard did VDOE staff really push it? Reports vary -- some even indicate that staff gave the bill a wink and a nod and little more, perhaps even signaling to legislators that they need not pay the bill any heed. It will be tough for a volunteer board to determine if staff members are following through on board initiatives with due diligence, but it's a critical challenge that must be met.  THE MEDIA: F Education is a huge part of the state's life. Not only does it consume a massive share of state and local taxes, it also is the service that prepares the next generation for the privileges and responsibilities of living in a democracy.  Yet how many substantive statewide education stories appeared in local newspapers or on the airwaves? Hardly any. In the major media not a drop of ink or second of air time was devoted to the struggle to expand the K-12 system to include pre-K this year, either at the State Board level or in the legislative committees. When the preschool expansion plan was then inserted in the budget bill, it seemed a perfect time for the state's Montpelier-based reporters to jump on the story. That incident was greeted with silence as well. There's no question that education is a tough beat to cover. It is often complex (and yes, it can also be boring). It is often difficult to sort through the competing claims and voices to find the important facts worth reporting. None of these difficulties justifies the complete abandonment of this important beat, however. And yet that seems to be precisely what the major media in Vermont have done.  SUMMER SCHEDULE The Vermont Education Report will appear irregularly throughout the summer. Although we'll strive for a twice-a-month schedule, we might show up in your email boxes at unexpected times as news breaks!  *   *   * 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

---

........