________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT February 28, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 09 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... HOUSTON, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM Although the early education rules proposed by the Vermont Department of Education were withdrawn at the last State Board of Education meeting, a problem persists. Some public schools continue to draw down the Education Fund, using ADM calculations to fund public pre-school programs. The question now becomes - should this practice continue and if not, what should the state do about the programs now in effect? The Vermont Department of Education and others believe that statute and current rules allow public schools to spend Education Fund dollars for universal public pre-k programs - in other words, pre-k programs that serve both rich and poor. Vermonters for Better Education, the publisher of this newsletter, believes that legislative intent was to use Education Fund dollars only for pre-k programs for at-risk children (children from low income homes or households where English is a second language). MEANWHILE, THE GOVERNOR'S POSITION IS.... Governor James Douglas has been mostly mute on the topic of how or if the state should fund early education programs. Last year, when S. 166, the early education bill, made its way through the Senate and into the House, there was no word from the governor's office on his opinion. After the session, however, Jason Gibbs, the governor's spokesperson, said the governor had not been enthusiastic about the bill. Then, the governor signed the Executive Order in late summer creating the Building Bright Futures transitional board, a group committed to drafting legislation to address childcare and early ed issues. At that time, Gibbs said the governor favored the BBF approach with its pubic/private funding opportunities because it was an opportunity for the business community to "put their money where their mouth is." Now, BBF legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate, the early ed rules drafted by the VDOE are off the table, and public schools continue to use Education Funds for public pre-K with no restriction. What does the administration think about all this? "One of the purposes of Building Bright Futures," said Gibbs in an interview last week, "is to limit the property taxpayer's exposure to increasing pressures on the Education Fund." Those pressures, of course, include the current draw-down of Education Funds by public schools funding pre-K programs. "We have to find a way to restrict the draw down of ADM funds (for this purpose)," says Gibbs, "and that should be done through a thoughtful process in the legislature that will hopefully rely on private providers (as well as public ones)."  While he didn't offer a specific proposal for dealing with the problem of the current draw-down of Education Funds for public pre-k, Gibbs was clearer on the administration's stand on including private providers in a pre-k plan. Gibbs said the administration would "hang tough" on the issue of money following the child to private providers.  BILL TO RESTRUCTURE SBOE? For more than a decade, the State Board of Education was comprised of representatives appointed by the Dean administration who didn't buck the Education Lobby on many issues. Now the SBOE is being filled with Governor Douglas appointees. While these individuals all have strong backgrounds in education, they also bring to the board a diversity of opinions and beliefs. The result? No more rubber stamping of what comes before them from the Education Lobby or its friends. Perhaps that is why a bill surfaced last week that would restructure the State Board of Education to add four legislative members to the SBOE. The bill proposes that the four legislators be chosen by the Speaker of the House (two representatives) and the Committee on Committees (two senators). Because both chambers are now controlled by Democrats, that would mean the governor's already-weak control of education would be diluted even further. As of this writing, the bill has not been introduced.  OTHER ED BILLS: MEDIA LITERACY, CONSTITUTIONAL LITERACY AND MORE The following education-related bills have recently been introduced: H.180: increases the age of mandatory schooling from 16 to 18, but does indicate the age mandate doesn't apply to students who have completed the equivalent of 12 years of schooling or received their high school diploma. H. 201: allows local school boards rather than selectboards to fill vacancies on the school board. H.319: sponsored by virtually every Democrat in the House, this bill seeks to address the problem of information overload experienced by those "too busy to inform themselves about how to respond critically to media messages and to use media effectively." Standards for this new requirement would be developed for schools by the VDOE. H.320: this is an effort (that occurs on a regular basis) to define what "equal educational opportunities" should cost, presumably so the state can make sure it's spending enough money. It was not sponsored by a fiscal conservative. H.305: this would require schools to teach the Vermont constitution. (This and other civics-requirement bills often occur because of complaints about the lack of content-based curriculum regarding history and civics issues.) H.371: this requires schools to teach Vermont history and government in middle school and high school.  MONKEY MOMENTS In last week's VER we reported that perennial testifier Superintendent William Mathis was in the statehouse recently bearing witness to the evils of the No Child Left Behind Act. The VER has obtained a copy of the presentation he used for his testimony. It is entitled: NCLB and the Monkey Trap. According to this Monkey Trap show, "holding on to the Nut" could turn the state into "monkey stew." The "nut" is the millions in Title I money -- $48.5 million -- Vermont would have to forgo if it followed Dr. Mathis's advice and escaped the monkey trap by giving up the nut. Some people, however, might argue that giving up such a big nut is, well, bananas. Dr. Mathis is now estimating it will cost the state $190 million for remedial work alone to bring students up to achievement levels required by NCLB. You read that right - the bulk of Dr. Mathis's estimates are for educational costs, not for new testing and other issues associated with the law. He believes that only a huge infusion of cash would bring underachievers up to proficiency levels. Or, to put it more simply: more money, less accountability seems to be the idea he really goes ape for. (Sorry, we couldn't resist.)  *   *   * COMMENTARY ... TIME FOR A CLEAR MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR by Libby Sternberg The push for universal early education in Vermont seems to spring from well-intentioned efforts to address perceived problems. One group sees the problem as student under-achievement and the subsequent long-term societal ills that result from poor performance in school. Those who fall into this camp usually believe that the "achievement gap" -- the difference in test scores between rich and poor -- is caused by a lack of preparation for school, not by any deficiencies in the K-12 schools themselves. Therefore, quality universal pre-K is the answer. Then there are those who believe there might be sufficient resources within the system now to meet any needs, but the problem is these resources are inefficient, duplicative and sometimes hard for users to identify. Therefore, streamlining current programs is the answer, and is part of the Building Bright Futures initiative encouraged by the governor and in bill form in both the House and Senate. There are also those who believe that childcare capacity is a problem in the state -- there aren't enough quality providers of childcare or early education services to meet the need, and there isn't enough help for parents who can't afford them, or for programs that can't survive on user fees alone. Finally, there are those who simply want to make sure that whatever program is designed doesn't put an undo strain on the Vermont taxpayer. Thus the solution is to encourage a strong public-private collaboration where the business community, to use the words of the governor's spokesperson, can "put their money where their mouth is." While those who seek to solve these problems can make good cases for their various proposed solutions, no one so far has provided a compelling answer to this question: Is it NECESSARY OR CRITICAL that the state subsidize early education and/or childcare for children who are not designated as "at risk" - children from moderate to well-off financial backgrounds and stable households? That question leads to another question -- is it RIGHT to ask Vermont taxpayers to subsidize early education and/or childcare for parents who could afford to pay for these services on their own and whose children do not fall into an "at risk" category? Every early education and/or childcare program considered over the past year -- from S.166 through existing public preschool initiatives to Building Bright Futures -- includes the general student population, rich and poor.  This means that those of modest income in the state could be asked to fund a program of free pre-school for those making enough to afford to pay for it on their own. In some regions, this is already happening as public schools draw down Education Funds for public pre-K programs offered free to community residents. This "universal preschool" approach can lead to extreme inequities. For example, a family with a combined household income of $50,000 a year can end up subsidizing, with their taxes, the "free" preschool for a family with a combined household income of $80,000 or more a year -- even if the children in the more affluent family would be prepared for school without the free pre-K services in the first place. This is regressive fiscal policy at its worst -- the poor underwriting the wealthy. Where's Bernie Sanders when you need him? In all seriousness, this is a real problem that should be addressed: why are all Vermont taxpayers being asked to underwrite preschool programs for children whose parents can afford to pay for these services?  Vermont taxpayers currently pay for both rich and poor children in the K-12 system but there is legitimate reason for this - the state COMPELS you to "school" your children up until the age of 16. Thus the state (and local government) has an obligation to fund that mandate. There is no mandate for preschool (yet). It is optional and voluntary. While it may be of value for "at risk" children -- even saving taxpayers money in the long run -- is it necessary and crucial to provide it for free to those who can afford it on their own, especially when the funding comes from those who might not be able to afford other extra educational opportunities for their own children? Governor Douglas has a reputation as a fiscal conservative, eager to save the taxpayers' money. It's time for him to step up to the plate on this issue and speak clearly and strongly -- does he support universal taxpayer-subsidized preschool even for children whose parents can afford to pay for it on their own? And if he doesn't, what does he propose to do to regulate the current draw-down of education funds for universal preschool programs?  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... FROM THE EDUCATION INTELLIGENCE AGENCY COMMUNIQUÉ On the web at: http://www.eiaonline.com AFT LAUNCHES PRE-SCHOOL ORGANIZING EFFORT The American Federation of Teachers announced the launching of its campaign to organize the early childhood education workforce. Through its web site - http://www.firstclassteachers.org - the union offers preschool teachers access to the AFT member benefits program for $50 a year. The project is clearly an effort to bring a new workforce into the union movement. The NEA has not been as active in this regard, though there are indications that a new campaign by the Connecticut Education Association for more preschool programs is at least partly a pilot effort to organize preschool employees.  *   *   * 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

---

........