________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT August 09, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 30 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... A FRANK AIRING OF EARLY ED ISSUES? The Vermont State Board of Education holds its monthly meeting next Tuesday, August 16, and the agenda includes a discussion of early education issues.  The Commissioner of Education, Richard Cate, has prepared a handout for the SBOE -- printed below -- that provides a decent summary of issues surrounding the early education programs in the state. If the discussion is handled properly, it could result in an important first step toward finally reaching consensus on the core questions surrounding this issue, such as: What kinds of early education programs should the state pay for, and what students should be served by public funding? What is the most equitable and appropriate way to deliver early education services in the state, especially given the fact that private providers have been delivering these services for so many years? The Education Lobby, however, might not like all the answers. For example, perhaps the answer to the first question is this: the state should pay for early education programs for at-risk children, seeking to help them start kindergarten and first grade at the same level of learning readiness as their more well-off peers. But the Education Lobby, particularly the VT-NEA, might like the state to underwrite early education for ALL students, rich and poor alike, regardless of what's really appropriate or even doable. After all, it's in their best interest to grow the education-sector of state services.  Similarly, the VTSBA and like-minded organizations have reasons to support such an expansion if it means local school districts can use gains in early ed students to offset losses in K-12 students due to declining enrollments. Who will speak for the students, private providers and taxpayers in this discussion? Hopefully, the SBOE will keep their concerns in mind, providing a springboard for corrective action by the legislature next year. COMMISSIONER'S HANDOUT ON EARLY ED FOR SBOE MEETING: Vermont State Board of Education - Department of Education Vermont State Board of Education meeting on August 16, 2005: Item M 1 State Board of Education August 16, 2005 Item __M__ Team: Commissioner Discussion Topic: Early Childhood Education Alignment with Goals: Goal 1; Objective A; Strategy 1, "Promote a statewide coordinated system of early childhood education in collaboration with private providers and school districts." Background Information: Enrolled general education preschool students have been counted as part of school districts' average daily membership (ADM), for purposes of state aid since 1987. Since 1991, federal law has required that services be provided to pre-kindergarten students with disabilities ages 3 to 5 under a program called Essential Early Education. Federal and state funding support services for these children. Since 1987, the state of Vermont has used general fund money to support Early Education Initiative grants to a number of schools to provide incentives for the creation and support of early childhood education programs. Also in 1987, the Legislature gave school boards the authority "to administer early education programs." 16 V.S.A. §.563(6). In 1998, after the enactment of Act 60, the State Board adopted rule 9200.4 related to funding for pre-kindergarten students. The current rule states, "For early essential education/pre-kindergarten pupils, the percentage of full-time equivalent enrollment shall be calculated by applying the ratio of actual hours such pupils are enrolled per week to 10 hours, and further multiplying by 46 percent." Act 71 of the Acts of 2005 further codified this methodology for calculating the ADM. Early childhood education has been a topic of conversation in a number of venues over the past few years. In 2003, S.166 was introduced in the Senate. This bill addressed preschool funding, program quality and collaboration between public school districts and private providers. The bill also addressed some issues associated with kindergarten. This bill passed the Senate in 2004 but was not acted upon in the House. In 2005, S.132 was introduced in the Senate. This bill contains much of the same language as S.166. In August of 2004, Governor Douglas signed an executive order establishing the Building Bright Futures: Vermont's Alliance for Children Transitional Board. The executive order stipulates that the Commissioner of Education and the Chair of the State Board of Education serve on this board. One other State Board member was appointed to the Transitional Board.  The first charge to the Transitional Board, listed in the executive order is, "Develop a recommendation for the organization, structure, staffing and funding of a public/private entity that can more effectively manage and direct the Building Bright Futures: Vermont's Alliance for Children and that will assure the equitable access for all children and families seeking services, maximize existing resources in the early care, health and education system, align resources with desired outcomes in a consistent, measurable manner and improve the well-being of Vermont's children and their families..."  At a recent Transitional Board meeting, members agreed that the Board needs to clarify further the best means of achieving the goal of "improving the well-being of children and their families." A variety of issues regarding early childhood education have been raised by different parties, including the following: Some private providers and public educators have stated that early education should be a birth-to-5 system to ensure that all children are prepared for kindergarten. This does not imply that they believe that all children should be required to attend prekindergarten programs. Some educators are concerned that, if the funding system is changed so that it does not flow through school districts, the program quality control mechanisms may not be adequate. Some private providers are concerned the current funding system for education gives public school districts an advantage over private providers and could put some providers out of business. Some private providers are concerned that, when school districts contract with particular qualified providers, they are advantaging some private providers over others. Some citizens have expressed concerns about having state funding continue to be available for all pre-kindergarten students ages 3 to 5. They are concerned that this system is too costly for the state and recommend that such funding only be available for "at risk" students. Some private providers are concerned that, if the quality standards previously suggested by the Agency of Human Services and the Department of Education are implemented by rule or statute, they would be disadvantaged because they would not be able to achieve them in a timely manner. Some private providers have expressed concerns that there is not enough state support for early care and early childhood education. Some school administrators and school boards have expressed concerns about the lack of state funding in the first two years of pre-kindergarten programs because of the two-year averaging component of ADM. Purpose of Discussion: Early childhood education may be a topic during the upcoming legislative session. As noted above, the strategic plan of the State Board and the department includes a strategy that states: "Promote a statewide coordinated system of early childhood education in collaboration with private providers and school districts." The Board has also adopted this topic as a focus strategy for this year. This discussion is designed to be the first in a series of conversations during which the State Board will develop a position on early childhood education before the beginning of the legislative session in January. Cost Implications: These will be determined based on the outcome of the Board's discussions. Staff Available: Tracy Gallo, Jim Squires and Manuela Fonseca.  ANOTHER COUNTY HEARD FROM Last week, we reported that Rep. George Cross had sent a commentary on early education containing some significant inaccuracies to the Rutland Herald and Stowe Reporter. Well, now it's turned up in The Other Paper in South Burlington. To respond, you can email: Otherpaper@adelphia.net COMMENTARY... FAREWELL, K-12 by Libby Sternberg This summer, my husband and I are helping our daughter pack up for college. She's the youngest of our three children, which means we are now finished with K-12 education as parents. As she moves on to this next, exciting phase of her life, I find myself thinking back over the years of school that prepared her - and her two brothers before her - for this point. All our children attended a combination of public and private schools. They went to a Catholic elementary school because we liked its emphasis on a back-to-basics approach that ensured the kids were getting a solid grounding in important gateway subjects. We knew there'd be no question they'd be able to read and write reasonably well coming out of that school. We also liked their emphasis on moral values during those tender, beginning years when a child is learning to use a moral compass.  Our oldest stayed in private school until his junior year. Then, on his own initiative, he sought out a school with more AP course offerings - the local public high. The other two kids followed suit, attending public high school from freshman year on.  The high school choice proved to be a good one for them as well. They found a great selection of appropriate extracurriculars, AP courses that gave them a head start on college, and, my daughter found teachers willing to work (albeit in some cases reluctantly) with her desire to graduate in three years. Throughout all their years of schooling, we came across great educators. Here are snapshots of some of them: -- the private school first-grade teacher who assured parents at an Open House that no child would leave her classroom without the ability to read - and delivered on that promise; -- the private and public school principals who were willing to throw the rulebook away to make sure kids were receiving the content they needed in order to remain challenged by school; --the public high school English teacher whose high standards were equaled by his strong interest in encouraging talent; -- the public school music teachers who provided artistic opportunities outside the classroom on their own time; -- the public school AP History teacher who made sure kids read the Federalist papers and other primary sources and not a Cliff Notes textbook summary. Of course, not every teacher was excellent. We had our share of experiences with teachers who didn't know their subject matter, were inflexible, who used the classroom as a not-so-thinly-veiled platform for their political views, and some who were just plain silly. But over the years, the good far outweighed the bad and I would have to rank our local public high school very highly in overall quality of education. I would also have to say that our K-12 educational experiences were enhanced immeasurably by school choice. Obviously we benefited from being financially able to make choices for our children in their younger years. We were able to choose a private elementary school when we felt that best met their needs. And we were able to supplement their schooling with private music lessons and even college courses when school wasn't providing enough. But just as they were positively affected by these choices, their high school was positively effected by the choices of students in surrounding towns. You see, their public high school is a receiving school for many students in nearby tuition towns. I've sat through enough of the school's open houses to witness firsthand how efficiently and aggressively the high school recruits these tuition town students. Those open houses were some of the best-run programs I've ever attended in the years my children were all in school. Because the high school is trying to recruit these students, the administration has a market incentive to maintain high quality standards. The more they can enhance quality, in fact, the more likely they are to attract students. So my children's quality experiences at this school were due at least in part to other students' choices as much as their own.  Oh, I'm sure teachers and administrators would tell you that their focus is on quality regardless of what share of students they attract. But it is counterintuitive to think that they would be focused in the same way, with the same vigor and attention to the RIGHT details, if it weren't for the fact that such a focus can bring them more students and more revenue. As a school choice advocate, I've long touted the research that shows choice is not harmful to public schools but in fact beneficial. As a parent, I've been lucky enough to feel the effects of these marketplace incentives and pressures in my own children's schooling. I wish all children were so fortunate. *   *   * FUNDRAISING BONUSES! Thanks to those who've responded to our annual plea for money! We still need more, though, to support the efforts of Vermonters for Better Education. Remember, we're one part-time staffer and a volunteer board - yet we've been able to play a major role in education policy in the state. Here's a special offer of thanks to donors who send in a check of $100 or more.... We'll send you a signed copy of David Kirkpatrick's 1997 booklet "School Choice: An Idea that Can't be Conquered." Kirkpatrick's columns frequently appear in this newsletter. This 30-page booklet was originally published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation. For donors who contribute $300 or more... We'll send you a signed copy of a teen mystery inscribed to the child of your choice (provide the name with your donation) by the Edgar-nominated author herself (who also happens to be the editor of this newsletter). Bonus thank-you gifts are available while supplies last. Donors who sent in contributions in the past two months may request one of the bonus gifts by emailing VTBetterEd@aol.com Send in your check today: VBE, 170 Church Street, Rutland, Vermont 05701. (If you'd prefer not to receive the thank-you bonuses, please let us know.) Thanks!  *   *   * 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

---

........