________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT December 19, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 49 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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 BOARD TAKES UP EARLY ED....AGAIN At its meeting this week, the Vermont State Board of Education will again consider early education rules that will govern the way public schools offer pre-K services. The rules being considered contain some nuanced changes from those considered and tabled earlier this year. But the changes might not be substantive enough to allay concerns raised about the impact on private providers when public schools offer the same services for free. For example, these new rules, like the old ones, do not require public schools to include private preschool providers in a network of pre-K offerings. Instead, the new rules only mandate that school districts "consult with existing qualified community providers before establishing new early childhood education programs." There is no assurance that this "consultation" will result in inclusion for private providers. An appeals process, however, is available for private providers but one has to wonder how often it would be used, especially by small private providers who are not wired into local community politics, let alone a state-level program. And, as was the case with the previous rules, these rules are designed to govern a UNIVERSAL preschool program. That is, free preschool for rich and poor alike. EXPANDING THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM These rules represent yet one more step toward continuing to codify an expansion of the public school system that began quietly years ago. Even without a preschool law being passed, schools began to use ADM calculations for preschool students after a previous State Board okayed the draw down of Education Funds for this purpose. In more recent years, schools received encouragement from the Vermont Department of Education to go into the pre-K business -- VDOE staff promoted the expansion in part by explaining how going into the pre-K business can hold school districts harmless in the face of declining enrollments.  When this expansion received attention over the past two years, however, concerns were raised by various groups -- the publisher of this newsletter among them -- about the legality of the draw down of the Education Fund for the purpose of universal pre-K. This year, Sen. Don Collins, chairman of Senate Education, took the unusual step of going behind his own committee (and colleagues in the House) to insert the ADM calculation language for preschoolers into the budget bill. This kept current programs safe from claims public schools were using such money illegally (which begs the question raised on these pages before -- if Sen. Collins and crew thought it was legal to begin with, why the need to insert the language into law?). Although this "session law" will soon expire, chances are the Vermont Department of Education will continue to encourage public schools to draw down Education Fund monies, using the ADM formula for pre-K students. The VDOE, and other supporters of pre-K, will probably fall back on their original argument -- it was legal all along (which begs the question once again -- why the need for even "session law" to codify it if it was legal all along?). Also possible -- the General Assembly will pass an early ed bill that will enshrine in undebatable law once and for all the expansion of the public school system.  IS THE EXPANSION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL WORTHWHILE? This expansion will take place despite murky evidence that universal preschool has any LASTING benefits and growing evidence that universal preschool ALWAYS ends up costing exponentially more than what supporters claim at the outset of such programs. The question is: does Vermont need an expansion of its public school system? Or should we be focusing our resources on fixing what we have -- a K-12 system that spends more per pupil than many states, has one of the lowest student/teacher ratios in the country, and still manages to leave in the dust some of its poorest and most vulnerable students by not bringing them up to proficiencies in gateway subjects such as reading and math?  WHO WILL STEP FORWARD?  If Vermont doesn't need an expansion into the pre-K business, who will step forward to stop it? The possibilities include: The State Board of Education: The SBOE could retool the rules drafted by the VDOE staff to restrict ADM money to K-12 or even to include only at-risk pre-K children and mandate private provider involvement. Ironically, the SBOE might balk at that kind of rule-making. The SBOE is now made up of many Governor Douglas appointees and they seem to be conservative in their approach to using rule-making authority for such a venture. However, why shouldn't they try to fix what a previous State Board did when it first made the pre-K ADM rule? The legislature: The current General Assembly is dominated by Democrats more than willing to expand government programs. Many of them are probably sympathetic to the VDOE's view that this expansion of public school is already kosher and necessary. Republicans, on the other hand, are probably loathe to take on this battle. The governor: During the last session, the governor had the opportunity to draw a line in the sand when Sen. Collins committed his budgetary skullduggery, inserting the pre-K ADM language into the budget bill. Instead, Governor Douglas made a few statements and nothing more -- no threaten to veto, for example, a budget bill that had the potential to burden generations of Vermonters to come with higher taxes due to this public school expansion. The outcome of the pre-K debate is uncertain but not hopeful for those concerned about fixing K-12 and protecting Vermont taxpayers.  VT-NEA LEADER GETS OVER $100K SALARY No big surprise here, but recently released information from the financial disclosure reports filed by teachers' unions shows that about one-third of the $295 million in dues collected in 2004-05 goes to pay salaries and benefits for employees and retirees. According to Mike Antonucci's excellent Education Intelligence Agency Communique, 26 executive directors of state NEA affiliates were also paid by the NEA. Those 26 include Vermont's own Joel Cook, the VT-NEA's E.D., whose compensation was listed as $117,963. There's no indication if the Vermont affiliate also adds to that salary in any way.  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... The Fordham Foundation  Short Reviews of New Reports and Books by Martin A. Davis, Jr. On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net HEAD START'S BROKEN PROMISE Douglas J. Besharov, American Enterprise Institute, 2005 Questions about the effectiveness of Head Start -- the famed, early intervention, preschool program for disadvantaged kids -- have held up reauthorization of the $9 billion a year program since 2003. Earlier this year, however, Republicans and Democrats agreed, with no compelling research to guide their decisions, to give Head Start the benefit of the doubt and set it on the road to renewal. Both House and Senate drafted bills that, if enacted, would greatly expand the program.  Let's hope it's not too late to reverse course. A gold-standard (randomized experiment) study of the program released just weeks after Congress set reauthorization in process shows Head Start to be only modestly successful in preparing children for school. Bottom line Head Start alumni fair only marginally better than similar children who do not participate. So glum were these findings, notes Douglas Besharov in this commentary, that even Head Start boosters could say little more than that it has "modest impact" on children's lives.  Even more damning is the fact that Head Start parents are using their feet to vote against the program. Writes Besharov "Many working parents use regular child care (even if they have to help pay for it) or instead rely on relatives to care for their children." How should Congress respond? Besharov urges lawmakers to "mandate a systematic research and demonstration effort aimed at making Head Start more effective." It may be "naive to think Head Start can be operated on the basis of careful research rather than politics," he writes, "but each year almost a million children pass through the program without getting the head start on learning they were promised."  You can read Besharov's excellent paper at the AEI web site.  *   *   * U.S. Freedom Foundation On the web at: http://www.freedomfoundation.us/ EDUCATIONAL TAX CREDITS A SUCCESS STORY by David W. Kirkpatrick, senior education fellow  The idea of income deductions to assist parents in sending their children to the school of their choice has been around for years. It was advocated by President Ronald Reagan's administration but not strongly promoted. Besides the usual opposition from the public school establishment the basic idea has problems of its own. It is of no use to those whose income is so low that they pay no taxes which the credit may reduce. Giving an after-the-fact credit to parents foundered on the cash flow problem. Too many parents couldn't pay tuition in the fall and receive a rebate at the end of the school year. A credit against income is also of limited use in states with a low income tax rate and no use in a state with no income tax.  Some years ago, the idea emerged for a universal tax credit, that is, a credit applied directly to taxes given to someone who contributes to a nonprofit agency that then provides student scholarships. One example is Arizona which, in 1997, created a state income tax credit of up to $500 for donations to private schools and up to $200 to support extracurricular activities in public schools that require a fee. The credit is available to every taxpayer who donates the money to nonprofit groups that will use the funds to give scholarships to students in private schools, including religious ones. The major restriction is that the donated money cannot be used to provide tuition for a child of the donor. The plan was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court in January of 1999 and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review it.  The plan went into effect for the private schools in January of 1998. In the first school year, 1998-99, more than 500 students received tuition assistance from 18 tuition organizations. By 2004 the Arizona Department of Revenue reported that the tax credit had made it possible for more than 19,000 students to attend the school of their choice in the preceding school year. Furthermore, the program's growth rate continues to soar, in 2003 nearly doubling that of 2002.  In 2001 Pennsylvania established its own version, by which corporations could receive a credit against taxes for contributions to scholarship or school improvement organizations. Within three schools years, by 2004-5, 165 scholarship, 230 education improvement, and 50 pre-K scholarship organizations in Pennsylvania were receiving contributions. In that time, 2,200 businesses had contributed more than $140 million. It would have been more but more than 100 businesses couldn't contribute because the program cap had been reached. For the 2004-5 school year the maximum possible contributions were reached in 70 days. One result is that the cap has now been raised from $40 million to $44 million. As for students, 25,000 of them received scholarships in just the 2004-5 school year.  Tax credits also play to the concern of those who favor school choice but hesitate to vote for student grant proposals because of their fear that government regulations will follow the money. This is not necessarily the case but so many are convinced that it is true that it is a factor that must be considered.  A variation of such credits now exists in other states, including Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Florida.  Tax credits, whether applied to income or directly to taxes, is donated money that doesn't go to government at all; thus there is little need or authority to regulate its use. The property tax deduction against income is a prime example. Collectively, taxpayers save more than $30 billion in taxes with this deduction but neither state nor local governments attempt to interfere in how these funds are subsequently spent.  In brief, this is an approach which works if properly drafted, and which might win the necessary votes in more state legislatures that so far object to publicly funded student grants. It is also a program that could supplement student grants, not prohibit them. It is perfectly possible that ultimately both, and other options as well, will make possible democracy in education, something this nation, virtually alone among the developed nations of the world, does not have at present.  David Kirkpatrick is a Bennington native now living in Pennsylvania. He is a former public school teacher and former 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

---

........