www.SchoolReport.com
Vermonters
for Better Education
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 26, 2004 Vol. 4, No. 04
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Covering education news in Vermont and beyond...
Informative, provocative, unique...
Published by Vermonters for Better EducationNEWS & ANALYSIS...
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.comSTATE BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVES OF SCHOOL CHOICE – AGAIN
On Tuesday, January 20, the State Board of Education once again voted nearly unanimously to approve public school choice. The Board had voted the previous week to approve a pro-school choice resolution but a procedural error forced a revote on the 20th after the Board took public comment.
Around 30 people showed up at the Board meeting to testify. The overwhelming majority – more than 20 – were there in support of school choice. Testifiers ranged from advocates (John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute and Libby Sternberg, editor of this newsletter) to ordinary parents and taxpayers.
Among the opponents of the resolution were staff from the Vermont School Boards Association and the Vermont Superintendents Association as well as Senate Education Committee Chairman Jim Condos (D-Chittenden).
Condos referred to the previous week’s vote as a "travesty" and likened it to a move in the Senate Education Committee two years ago to get a school choice bill stuck in committee out onto the floor of the Senate. Ironically, Bill Corrow, the former state senator who helped engineer that move, now sits on the State Board of Education and was therefore the audience for Sen. Condos’s complaint.
After some discussion, the Board approved the following resolution:
"The State Board of Education supports the general concept of public school choice. We encourage the legislature to ensure that the development of any new system of enhanced choice address the needs of all students. The State Board plans to be an active participant in this process."
Lisa Cox and Trevor Braun, both SBOE members who abstained from last week’s vote, voted for this resolution along with fellow board members Deborah McDowell, Chris Robbins, Tom James, Susan Schill and Bill Corrow. Board member Rick Manahan arrived late and abstained. The board chair, Diane Mueller, does not vote.
OPPOSITION TO CHOICE SHOWS UP IN NEWSPAPERS
As the public school choice bill begins to wend its way through the House process, opponents are taking to the state’s media to make their case. In a January 18 Burlington Free Press "My Turn" column, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Windsor) criticized the school choice component of the governor’s State of the State address as follows:
"School choice: Douglas is pinning his hopes on school choice as a way to solve education problems, even though no evidence supports this as a successful policy. Is Douglas being fair to working Vermonters when he says they should have the same school choice that is available to rich people or is he casually disregarding the reality of the challenges they face? In a rural state, working parents cannot realistically have real choice without transportations yet Douglas makes no practical proposal to provide this.
"To help schools, we must reduce costs beyond their control so they can spend more on instruction, and less on other things. For example, we spend $162 million on benefits for teaching staff, mostly to provide health care all our citizens deserve. Our local schools and taxpayers cannot keep up with the rising costs. Yet the governor proposes no way to bring these costs under control."
Letters to the editor at the Burlington Free Press can be addressed to: letters@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
On Thursday, January 22, Rutland Northeast Superintendent William J. Mathis (a longtime opponent of school choice), had a commentary published in the Rutland Herald. Below are excerpts from the Mathis commentary:
"Vouchers offer false hope" ...by William J. Mathis (William J. Mathis is superintendent of schools for the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union and a professor of education finance at the University of Vermont.)
"School vouchers, gilded in the more appealing term 'school choice,' have again ascended in the Vermont political world. This year, the argument is that vouchers will give 'equality’ to all children. In this argument, the average Vermont parent would have the same choice as more affluent people who can afford private tuition or who have the means to move to a community with a ‘better school.’...
"...Unfortunately, vouchers have the opposite effect. They separate children from each other by socioeconomic level. They separate children from their communities, townsfolk from their schools, and take accountability away from your locally elected school board. If democracy — local communities getting along with others and giving all children a chance to improve their lot is your goal — then vouchers will do more harm than good...
"...The result is that children are physically separated. The more affluent and prosperous are able to select their schools, but the less fortunate do not have the same options...
"...All too often, policymakers look for a silver bullet that will solve all our problems. Unfortunately, vouchers are a misfire that does not meet either the test of scientific integrity or the more important test of democracy..."
Letters to the editor of the Rutland Herald can be addressed to: letters@rutlandherald.com
NEW EDUCATION BILLS: SCHOOL BUDGET VOTES, SPECIAL ED ISSUES, "MEDIA LITERACY"
Three education bills introduced in the last week would have an effect on how towns vote on school budgets, how special education costs are handled and add "media literacy" to the curriculum.
H. 600, introduced on January 20 by Rep. Kathy LaVoie (R-Swanton) and John Winters (R-Swanton) would limit school budget votes to three before the legislature levied a tax "suitable to raise an amount equal to the previous year’s budget if there is no budget passed."
H. 601, introduced on the same day by Rep. Maxine Grad (D-Moretown) and Anne Donahue (R-Northfield) would provide financial aid to school districts "experiencing unusual or unexpected special education costs" for 2002-04.
H. 608, introduced on January 21 by Rep. Warren Kitzmiller (D-Montpelier) and Floyd Nease (D-Johnson), would add a phrase to the mandatory health education program in schools, requiring them to include instruction in "media literacy" – that is, helping kids resist alcohol and tobacco advertising.
SCHOOL CHOICE TESTIMONY IN HOUSE, BUT NONE IN SENATE
The House Education Committee will discuss issues of "equitability" and cost as they related to school choice this week, and will visit Rutland to meet with people involved in the school choice collaborative there.
The Senate Education Committee, meanwhile, pushes forward on a completely different tack, taking testimony on S. 166, the early education bill, and on the civics education bill and the bill that would allow immigrant children to receive credit for a foreign language. In addition, Senate Ed will discuss the No Child Left Behind Act on Thursday.
SCHOOL CHOICE STORIES: WE WANT 'EM!
Last year, Vermonters for Better Education asked readers who had chosen schools for their children to share their stories. We collected several moving stories from that call-for-information. Now, we want to collect more! Please send your story to: VTBetterEd@aol.com
IT'S NEVER TOO LATE...
...To consider a donation to VBE! Not only will it help support the continued circulation of the Vermont Education Report, it will also help us fund a radio campaign to explain the benefits of school choice. We've been receiving contributions steadily, but we could use more! Send your checks to: VBE, 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701. Thanks!
WORTH REPEATING: IMPORTANT LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION
Legislative Directory (including info on who your representatives are): http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/legdir2.htm
Email addresses for Senators: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/e-mail2.cfm?Body=S
Email addresses for Representatives: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/e-mail2.cfm?Body=H
Schedules for committees: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/schedule/schedule2.cfm
Search for a bill by sponsor or keyword: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/search/search.cfm
Status of a specific bill: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm
HOW TO CONTACT LEGISLATORS
Legislators are often busy and not available to take calls when they are in the Statehouse. However, constituents may call the Sergeant-at-Arms and leave messages for legislators. The phone numbers are: 1-800-322-5616 or 1-802-828-2228.
In addition, many legislators post their home phone numbers in the legislative directory (available on-line at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/legdir2.htm). Legislators are usually home on the weekends and Mondays.
If you have a long message or just want to make sure your message is communicated verbatim to your legislator, you can write a note or letter and fax it to the Statehouse at: 1-802-828-2424.
Most, if not all, legislators use email as well. While not all email addresses are posted in the legislative directory, the formula for legislative email addresses is simple: first initial followed by last name@leg.state.vt.us. For example, Senator James Condos, chair of the Senate Education Committee, can be reached at Jcondos@leg.state.vt.us. Many legislators also have personal email addresses. Some of those are listed at the legislative directory site. For example, Sen. Condos can also be reached through his AOL address: JCondos@aol.com.
HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Rep. Howard Crawford (R-Burke)chair: hcrawford@stj.k12.vt.us
Rep. George Cross (D-Winooski), vice chair
Rep. William Aswad (D-Burlington)
Rep. Carolyn Whitney Branagan (R-Georgia): cbranagan@leg.state.vt.us or Dunmore@adelphia.net
Rep. Henry Chen (D-Mendon): hchen@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Virginia Duffy (R-Rutland City): vduffy@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Kevin Endres (R-Milton); kendres@leg.state.vt.us or MrMtBus@aol.com
Rep. Steve Hingtgen (P-Burlington): shingtgen@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Kathy LaBelle LaVoie (R-Swanton): klavoie@leg.state.vt.us or klavoie@together.net
Rep. Rosemary McLaughlin (D-S. Royalton): rmclaughlin@leg.state.vt.us or rozo@valley.net
Rep. Ann Seibert (D-Norwich)SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden), chair - jcondos@leg.state.vt.us or jcondos@aol.com
Sen. Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland) kjmbjm@aol.com
Sen. Hull Maynard (R-Rutland) - hull@sover.net
Sen. Don Collins (D-Franklin) - dcollins@leg.state.vt.us
Sen. Hinda Miller (D-Chittenden) -- hmiller@leg.state.vt.us or hinda@deforestconcepts.com* * *
ELSEWHERE
A round-up of notable articles from other education publications.DC PARENTS WILL GET CHOICE!
Despite some powerful opposition to vouchers, the U.S. Senate passed an omnibus spending bill last week that includes vouchers for the District of Columbia. According to a Washington Post article, the "$14 million voucher program...will launch a five-year, federally funded experiment that will place the District at the forefront of the school-choice movement. At least 1,700 low-income District children would be able to participate, each receiving grants of up to $7,500 to attend private schools."
The bill also includes $13 million for the D.C. public school system and $13 million for the funding of charter schools in the District.
FROM OTHER EDUCATION PUBLICATIONS
A round-up of notable articles from other education publications.From "The Gadfly," the e-newsletter of the Fordham Foundation (http://www.edexcellence.net)
THE YEAR OF THE TEACHER?
by Chester E. Finn, Jr2004 could turn out to be the year of the teacher, the year that the bureaucratic, ideological, and regulatory strangleholds under which the teaching profession labors might just be broken. Last year ended with the Education Trust’s stern rebuke of federal and state officials for playing fast and loose with NCLB’s highly-qualified teacher requirement. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/gadfly/issue.cfm?id=128#1608.) The new year opened with an unexpectedly bold, almost radical, "call to reform" from Lou Gerstner’s Teaching Commission; a generally bullish evaluation of Denver’s pilot "pay for performance" effort; and a surprising speech by New York City teachers’ union head Randi Weingarten that urged decades-overdue streamlining of the "teacher discipline process." What next?
We will admit that when former IBM CEO Louis V. Gerstner formed his 19-member blue-ribbon teaching commission, it was so exquisitely "balanced" that we assumed it would be able to recommend little more than an extrapolation of present policies and practices into a better-financed future. We’re delighted to have been proven wrong. The Commission’s recommendations are far-reaching and generally commendable. Yes, it calls for plenty more money, but also for linking pay to effectiveness (based on value-added measures of student achievement), to subject specialty, and to working conditions. It urges new forms of accountability for teacher-education programs, making new teachers pass demanding tests of content knowledge, and removing needless certification obstacles. And it would empower school principals as "CEOs" with control over personnel decisions. Bravo. It’s 60 pages long and you can find it at http://www.theteachingcommission.org/publications/FINAL_Report.pdf.
Denver’s pay-for-performance pilot program wasn't very bold, large, or long-lasting, but it seems to have made a positive difference in many, though not all, of the participating schools. The 145-page study explaining this is full of information (much of it rather technical) but it also suggests that a real city CAN implement the kind of performance-linked compensation plan that the Gerstner team is urging, and can even do so with the union’s cooperation. The report is available at http://www.dpsk12.org/pdf/PayForPerformance.pdf.
As for Randi Weingarten’s January 14 speech to the Association for a Better New York, it seeks to answer the question, "How to get a highly qualified teacher into every New York City classroom—and keep them there?" Much of her answer is standard stuff: better base pay, a cursory nod toward performance-linked compensation, a professional career ladder, greater respect for teacher expertise, etc. But then she turned to the problem of teacher incompetence and —- after blaming management for not solving it -— offered a promising proposal of her own. Its gist is that management should move aside and give the union 90 days (no more) to set a faltering teacher either on the course to improvement or the road to exiting. In the latter case, she says, the union will then back principal and chancellor if they opt to "remove the person for incompetence." Though Ms. Weingarten made several more discipline-related recommendations, the 90-day time limit captured the headlines. After all, New York City claims that under present procedures it cannot remove an incompetent teacher in less than two years. Fascinating. You can find her text at: http://www.abny.org/docs/UFT_speech.pdf.
Three promising moves, at least on paper. And—let us, who often rap the unions, not fail to comment—all involved teacher unions. Two are obvious. In the Gerstner case, note that one of his panel members is AFT president Sandra Feldman. Good for them. Now they must walk the walk.
"Commission wants teacher pay tied to test scores,"
by Ben Feller, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 15, 2004"Merit pay helps students, too," Cleveland Pl
From The U.S. Freedom Foundation (http://www.freedomfoundation.us)CHARTER SCHOOLS - MISSED OPPORTUNITIES FOR SCHOOL BOARDS?
By David W. Kirkpatrick Senior Education FellowA dozen years ago there wasn't a charter school in the United States. Today there are more than 2,700, enrolling over 700,000 students. Only ten states do not have a charter school law. Clearly an unstoppable movement is underway. Despite this, most school boards oppose such schools.
With some exceptions, school boards do not recognize the value a meaningful charter school law may have for them. In one instance a suburban school district superintendent said publicly that when the law passed, he wanted to make every school in his district a charter school. The law passed, but none of the many charter schools in the state are in his district. His school board did not share his enthusiasm.
School boards are making a mistake.
First, the nation's 14,000-plus school boards commonly complain about excessive regulation. Yet they ignore the fact that better charter school laws waive many regulations.
If boards in such states want to do something different, they should stop complaining, or waiting for a good proposal to come over the transom. Just as they would do if they were building a new conventional school, they should design the kind of school they would like to see in their district and issue a Request for a Proposal, RFP, for someone to implement their vision.
Second, school boards claim they don't have enough money. But charter school laws generally provide fewer dollars for a charter school than a district currently spends for conventional ones. But, given fewer regulations, with increased flexibility of spending, charter schools generally do at least as well as conventional schools even with the fewer dollars.
Related to this is the strange argument that a new charter school costs the district money. If they build a new school for, say, 400 students, they don't say that school drains money from the rest of the district. But if that same school is a charter school, also a public school, costing less than the district average, it is a burden.
Third, school board members complain about the demands on their time. The administration of charter schools is not a direct board responsibility. Members would no longer have to hire staff, negotiate contracts in those states with bargaining laws, construct and operate schools, buy supplies, etc. Yet school boards would have ultimate control because a school must adhere to its charter and boards draft the charter. In brief, school boards would have greater autonomy and fewer demands on their time. That's potentially a win-win situation.
This is hardly unprecedented. Airport authorities do not run airlines, or the food court, etc. Mall developers do not own and operate stores. Yet each has the final say because they set operating requirements and see to it they are met.
Which leads to a final advantage. If a charter school operates in an unsatisfactory manner the board can close it down by not renewing the charter. If there is sufficient cause they can even revoke the charter before its termination date. When is the last time a school board closed a conventional public school because it was a failure? How many have even dared to try?
As the Book of Proverbs says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." School boards are not perishing. Increasingly, though, there are those who think they should. They are paying a price for their lack of vision.
Already, some state charter laws bypass them entirely and give charter powers to one or more other agencies, such as a state board. Other states authorize school boards to charter schools but give similar power to others as well, such as higher education institutions. Still other states have an appeals process.
While they have definitely slowed the charter school movement boards have been unable to stop it. As a result they increasingly see themselves on the sidelines.
There may be no clearer proof of why school reform is so difficult. Boards, and their chief school administrators, are so conventional in their thinking they not only cannot see a golden opportunity when it is handed to them, they object to being the option.
As the monarch said in "The King and I": "It's a puzzlement."
David Kirkpatrick is a Bennington native, former public school teacher, and former PA-NEA officer. He now lives in Pennsylvania.
* * *
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
..
..
..
..