________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT March 28, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 13 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... HOUSE, SENATE ED TACKLE...STUFF The House and Senate Education Committees have relatively light schedules this week, with only one vote actually on the agenda in House Ed on a bill that would update rules on what constitutes a school bus. On Wednesday, however, House Ed again will discuss S.133, the bill that adds four legislators to the State Board of Education. Sponsored by Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden), this bill magically appeared after Governor Jim Douglas appointed his latest member of the SBOE, solidifying a majority on the board who are more likely to reflect the governor's approach to education. When Howard Dean was governor and in control of SBOE appointments, the Democrats in the legislature didn't see the need to appoint legislative members to the SBOE. On Thursday, Rep. Harry Chen (D-Mendon) will present his limited public school choice bill, H.452, to the House Ed Committee. This bill would require public high schools to allow transfers among adjoining districts. Chen himself lives in a tuition town which means his kids have a choice of any public school in the state in addition to any number of private ones that meet state criteria. When he was a member of House Ed last year, Chen was seen as a key obstacle to the governor's public school choice bill coming out of committee. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Education Committee members will hear testimony on S.134, a bill that would allow senior citizens free tuition at Vermont State Colleges, and will listen to talk on "reinventing high schools."  GOVERNOR AND EARLY ED Two early education initiatives are making their way through various committees in the legislature now, but the governor has only indicated support for one, his Building Bright Futures initiative. This bill seeks to streamline early education programs and set up a public/private organization to oversee subsequent efforts. It is based on a program in North Carolina called Smart Start that also sought to involve private funders but only attracted a small percentage of private donations. In Vermont, the Building Bright Futures bill (introduced in both House and Senate) does not specify a funding match between public and private sources. But the governor's spokesperson, Jason Gibbs, says the administration would like to see that spelled out. "There needs to be a well-defined match" between public and private funds, Gibbs said late last week. The other early education bill in the legislature is S.132. Spearheaded by Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden), this is a reincarnation of last session's failed S.166 and would encourage public schools to offer universal preschool. The governor did not support S.166 and it looks like he won't support its current version. "(S.132) would increase the tax burden," Gibbs said, "and we think we have a better plan." He was obviously referring to the Building Bright Futures initiative. As to Condos's S.133, the bill that would allow the legislature to appoint SBOE members, Gibbs said "We believe in the separation of powers." In other words, the administration obviously doesn't go along with an effort to dilute the executive branch's limited control over education issues.  WHERE WILL VT-NEA COME DOWN ON SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE? The April issue of the VT NEA newsletter featured an interesting article on single payer health care. On the one hand, the article "recognizes that Vermont educators have struggled and sacrificed to obtain and, particularly, retain high quality health care coverage for themselves and their families. We will do nothing to jeopardize that." On the other hand, the union appears to be supporting the principles of a single payer health care system, particularly in passages like this: "Reform in health care policy must encompass the entire health care system." And, many VT-NEA political allies are pushing for single payer. What will happen if these legislators triumph? Health care coverage for teachers will be radically altered, that's what, unless the system carves out exceptions for VT-NEA members. It's hard to imagine voters standing still if legislators exempt over 10,000 NEA members from a single payer system while many other Vermonters who have struggled and sacrificed to obtain their own health coverage are forced out of their policies. It will be interesting to see where teachers ultimately come down on this controversial issue.  KAY COLES JAMES TO SPEAK IN RUTLAND Kay Coles James, former member of the Bush administration and former Senior Fellow with the Heritage Foundation, will speak on: "School Choice, a Matter of Freedom" Tuesday, April 26 at 7 p.m. at the Rutland Holiday Inn. Her appearance is a fundraising event for the Rutland Area Christian School and tickets are $10 each. There is also an opportunity to dine with Mrs. James at the Hearthside Restaurant in Rutland. The dinner is $125/plate.  For more info, you can call the school at 775-0709, or Jon Freeman at 775-4590.  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE On the web at: http://www.ij.org ARIZONA SCHOLARSHIP TUITION TAX CREDIT CONSTITUTIONAL -- AGAIN Phoenix-Federal District Court Judge Earl Carroll granted the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter's motion and dismissed the Arizona Civil Liberties Union's (AzCLU) frivolous legal challenge to the state's innovative Educational Tax Credit program. The Institute represents the Arizona School Choice Trust (ASCT), a scholarship-granting organization, and parents whose children receive scholarships from ASCT. "We are extremely gratified the District Court has once again recognized that school choice programs, such as Arizona's Scholarship Tax Credit, are constitutional," declared IJ-AZ Executive Director Tim Keller. Despite prior rulings from both the Arizona Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that school choice programs meet federal constitutional requirements, the AzCLU in the dismissed federal lawsuit had contended that the scholarship tax credit violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The District Court, while granting the Institute's motion to dismiss, also denied as moot motions filed by the Defendant State of Arizona and the Defendant-Intervenor Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization. The ruling comes at a crucial time because the Arizona Legislature is considering multiple bills involving the expansion of the tax credit, including proposals to create a corporate tax credit and to eliminate the marriage penalty. Currently, individual taxpayers may receive a tax credit up to $500 for donations made to a scholarship tuition organization such as ASCT, but a married couple may only claim a credit of $625. The Legislature is also considering several additional school choice measures involving school vouchers.  FROM THE PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE An arm of the New Democrats On the web at: http://www.ppionline.org TEACHER PAY IN CA Rather than heading for a rapid termination, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to institute performance-based pay for the state's teachers appears to be picking up steam. It recently received the endorsement of a statewide business group, and last week, Teaching Commission Executive Director Gaynor McCown wrote an op-ed strongly encouraging Democrats to work with Schwarzenegger on a progressive teacher-performance pay plan, rather than simply stonewalling. Meanwhile, an interesting Sacramento Bee article by Daniel Weintraub suggests that the Governator and the top Democrat in the state Senate might actually be in similar positions on this issue. And, in the Sunday LA Times two California teachers, including former 21st Century Schools Project fellow Hailly Korman, debate changing how teachers get paid. Still, the issue is a long way from settled. The California Teachers Association is seeking approval to increase member dues to raise more money to combat Schwarzenegger's plans, and a big fight is brewing over the issue. The governor would help his case a lot if he'd flesh out more details of his plan, because all pay-for-performance plans are certainly not created equal.  Further Reading: "Listen Up, Democrats: Change the Way Teachers are Paid," Gaynor McCown, San Jose Mercury News (03/10/2005): http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/11098266.htm "Senator Has Radical Take on School Policy," Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee (03/15/2005): http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/12565856p-13420872c.html "A Merit Pay Head Butt," Hailly Korman and Mandy Redfern, Los Angeles Times (03/20/2005): http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-edebate20mar20,1,2755133.story "Committee Backs Initiatives on Teacher Pay, State Spending," Ed Mendel, San Diego Union-Tribune (03/17/2005): http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050317-9999-1n17spend.html "California Teachers Association's Proposed Dues Increase Would raise More Than $54 Million to Fight Governor Schwarzenegger," Education Intelligence Agency (03/18/2005): http://www.eiaonline.com FROM THE FORDHAM FOUNDATION On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/ TEACHER CAN'T TEACH by Chester Finn, president of the Fordham Foundation Over the past half-century, the number of pupils in U.S. schools grew by about 50 percent while the number of teachers nearly tripled. Spending per student rose threefold, too. If the teaching force had simply kept pace with enrollments, school budgets had risen as they did, and nothing else changed, today's average teacher would earn nearly $100,000, plus generous benefits. We'd have a radically different view of the job and it would attract different sorts of people. Yes, classes would be larger--about what they were when I was in school. True, there'd be fewer specialists and supervisors. And we wouldn't have as many instructors for youngsters with "special needs." But teachers would earn twice what they do today (less than $50,000, on average) and talented college graduates would vie for the relatively few openings in those ranks. What America has done, these past 50 years, is invest in more teachers rather than better ones, even as countless appealing and lucrative options have opened up for the able women who once poured into public schooling. No wonder teaching salaries have just kept pace with inflation, despite huge increases in education budgets. No wonder the teaching occupation, with blessed exceptions, draws people from the lower ranks of our lesser universities. No wonder there are shortages in key branches of this sprawling profession. When you employ three million people and you don't pay very well, it's hard to keep a field fully staffed, especially in locales (rural communities, tough urban schools) that aren't too enticing and in subjects such as math and science where well-qualified individuals can earn big bucks doing something else. Why did we triple the size of the teaching work force instead of paying more to a smaller number of stronger people? Three reasons. First, the seductiveness of smaller classes. Teachers want fewer kids in their classrooms and parents think their children will be better off, despite scant evidence that students learn more in smaller classes, particularly from less able instructors. Second, the institutional interests that benefit from a larger teaching force, above all dues-collecting (and influence-seeking) unions, and colleges of education whose revenues (tuition, state subsidies) and size (all those faculty slots) depend on their enrollments. Third, the social forces pushing schools to treat children differently from one another, creating one set of classes for the gifted, others for children with handicaps, those who want to learn Japanese, who seek full-day kindergarten or who crave more community-service opportunities. Nobody has resisted. It was not in anyone's interest to keep the teaching ranks sparse, while many interests were served by helping them to swell. Today, we pay the price: lots of money spent on schooling, nearly all of it for salaries, but schooling that, at the end of the day, depends on the knowledge, skills and commitment of teachers who don't earn much and cannot see that they ever will. Compounding that problem, we make multiple policy blunders. We restrict entry to people "certified" by state bureaucracies, normally after passing through quasi-monopolistic training programs that add little value. Thus an ill-paid vocation also has daunting, yet pointless, barriers to entry. We pay mediocre instructors the same as super-teachers. Though tiny cracks are appearing in the "uniform salary schedule," in general an energized and highly effective classroom practitioner earns no more than a feckless time-server. We pay no more to high-school physics or math teachers than middle-school gym teachers, though the latter are easy to find while people capable of the former posts are scarce and have plentiful options. We pay no more to those who take on daunting assignments in tough schools than to those who work with easy kids in leafy suburbs. In fact, we often pay them less. Instead of recognizing that today's 20-somethings commonly try multiple occupations before settling down (if they ever do), then making imaginative use of those who are game to teach for a few years, we still assume that teaching is a lifelong vocation and lament anyone who exits the classroom for other pursuits. Instead of deploying technology so that gifted teachers reach hundreds of kids while others function more like tutors or aides, we assume that every classroom needs its own Socrates. Despite all that, and to their great credit, most teachers are decent folks who care about kids and want to help them learn. But turning around U.S. schools and "leaving no child behind" calls for more. It also requires passion, brains, knowledge and technique. Federal law now demands subject-matter mastery. Such qualities are hard to find in vast numbers, however, especially when the job doesn't pay very well. Yet fat across-the-board raises for three million people are a pipe dream. (Adding $10,000 plus benefits to their pay would add some $40 billion to school budgets.) Maybe we can't turn back the clock on the numbers, but surely we can reverse the policy errors. With hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs now turning over each year, at minimum we should insist that new entrants play by different rules that reward effectiveness, deploy smart incentives and suitable technology, compensate them sensibly, and make skillful use of short-termers instead of just wishing they'd stay longer. And this time let's watch what we're doing. This article originally appeared in the March 11, 2005 edition of the Wall Street Journal. The March 22, 2005 edition published several letters in response, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/ (subscription required).  *   *   * 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

---

........