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
April 04, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 14
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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...IT'S REALLY ABOUT SCHOOL CHOICE...BUT IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT SCHOOL CHOICE...
Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden) introduced S.133, the bill to add four legislators to the State Board of Education, because he doesn't like the fact that the State Board has been supportive of school choice. But then again, maybe that's not the reason. You figure it out:
In a Burlington Free Press article last week about S.133, Condos had this to say about the SBOE and his rationale for wanting to dilute the governor's influence over board membership: "They want to go far with a school choice bill that would hurt small community schools."
But wait - when pressed, Condos said the SBOE's support for choice isn't really what's driving his effort. Elsewhere the article reports:
"Condos denied, though, that that drove his bill. 'The reason behind this bill is there needs to be a better link to the Legislature,' he said."
COULD S.133 MORPH INTO SOMETHING ELSE?
What if S.133 changed? Instead of coming out of committee with a requirement for four legislators to join the SBOE, what if it instead included requirements that the governor appoint certain kinds of people to the State Board? In other words, what if he had to fill a teacher quota, an administrator quota and the like?
The governor, according to his spokesperson Jason Gibbs, would not support those changes.
"We are equally concerned about any bill that would limit the governor's ability to choose the best possible people for the State Board," Gibbs said.
OPPONENTS TO S.133
So far the opponents to the bill include the SBOE itself (SBOE Chairman Tom James testified against it), the governor, and the Burlington Free Press editorialist. The Burlington Free Press, by the way, is Sen. Condos's hometown newspaper. In a March 30 editorial, the paper opined:
"Worried that Republican Gov. Jim Douglas is stacking the nine-member board, the Democrats want to add four -- presumably of their own -- to broaden the education debate.
"That would be a mistake."
The editorial goes on to point out that the people can let the governor know if they don't like his SBOE choices at election time, and suggests only an "ex-officio" arrangement for the two chairs of the legislative education committees if a compromise is needed.
The Free Press editorial doesn't specify if the ex-officio status would give the chairs voting rights on the SBOE. If ex-officio members did have voting rights, it would still represent a dilution of the governor's modest influence over education policy.
However, there's nothing wrong with the Education Committee chairs regularly attending SBOE meetings. In fact, that might be something that they should consider now, and it doesn't even require passing a bill to make it happen.
Because the SBOE is currently made up of a majority of members whose views are not in line with the powerful "Education Lobby," the Education Committee chairs might get to hear some different points of view for a change. In other words, they'd be exposed to a diversity of opinion.
SPEAKING OF SCHOOL CHOICE
Rep. Harry Chen's school choice bill, H.452, will be discussed in House Education this week. This modest bill requires choice among adjoining districts only and is limited to high school. While it's unclear if Chen's sponsorship of this bill is driven by politics or good policy, the bill is still a step in the right direction.
House Ed will also continue to discuss legislators on the SBOE while Senate Education will take a look at a bill that adds a modest alteration to tuition town statute, allowing school boards to tuition kids to out-of-state elementary schools. Sponsored by Sen. Mark Shepard (R-Bennington) and Dick Sears (D-Bennington), the bill makes perfect sense for districts near state borders.
Also on the Senate Education agenda this week is S.132, the reincarnation of last session's S.166, an early education bill that would encourage public schools to offer universal preschool - that is, taxpayer-funded preschool for rich and poor alike. Five witnesses are on deck to talk about the bill and for the most part they look like supporters.
SPEAKING OF DEMOCRATS...
Wouldn't it be ironic if the only school choice initiative to make it out of the legislature this year was Rep. Harry Chen's bill, H.452? Rep. Chen was on the House Education Committee when it considered a public school choice bill last year. Supported by the governor, that bill died in House Education and Chen was partially responsible.
While on the committee, Chen was seen as someone with an open mind who could be persuaded to the merits of a choice bill. In addition, he lives in a choice town - Mendon - where he had the benefit of being able to choose a school for his own children. And, he's a doctor, a man used to considering scientific research. While there is a lot of research on school choice, it is the only education policy tested using science's "gold standard" - random assignment studies. Surely, the reasoning went, Rep. Chen, a man from a science background, would be able to evaluate better than most the merits of these studies and see the merit of choice.
It was a huge disappointment, therefore, when he decided to merely toe the VTNEA line and dig in against choice.
This year, he is sponsoring a very modest choice bill. But it's still a good move forward beyond the measly amount of choice allowed under Act 150. It's a step in the right direction.
If Chen is successful in moving this bill forward, it could be a smart move for Democrats, helping them align behind a popular policy. While school choice enjoys bipartisan support elsewhere, in Vermont it remains stuck in partisan camps with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing (with a couple exceptions).
Although Governor Douglas came out strongly in support of public school choice last year, his inability to move it forward puts him in exactly the same position as former Governor Howard Dean - paying lip service to the idea but unable or unwilling to move it forward.
THE VBR WEIGHS IN AGAIN ON EARLY ED
The Vermont Business Roundtable doesn't support specific legislation. However, they do support early education principles (which include, by the way, a very strong statement on the inclusion of a choice component to any early education policy in the state).
Well, now the VBR's rationale on early education is even clearer. In a Burlington Free Press commentary, VBR Chairman Staige Davis wrote that declining enrollments in the state mean "there can be no justification for spending more" money in education at the K-12 level. However, he goes on to say that it is "imperative that we reallocate our limited resources to areas of greater demand. Let's agree to efficiently redirect a portion of those billion dollars toward our pre-K and higher education programs."
In other words, the governor should forget about returning money to the Vermont taxpayer as enrollments decline. Universal preschool beckons.
* * *
FROM ELSEWHERE...From...The Education Intelligence Agency Communique - March 28, 2005
On the web at: http://www.eiaonline.com/DOES SIZE MATTER? WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING, IT DOES
School district consolidation efforts are underway in a number of states, while others are seeking ways to break up large school districts. They race headlong in opposite directions, with cost efficiency and local control the major selling points. Researchers have analyzed many factors affecting per-pupil spending, but there appears to be no consensus on the cost consequences of school district size. The natural tendency is to believe there are significant economies of scale in larger districts, but anecdotal evidence suggests these are at best overstated, and at worst non-existent.
Statistics from the recent U.S. Census Bureau report, Public Education Finances 2003, do not answer the question once and for all, but they do tell us that policy-makers and analysts should be very careful about any assumptions they make regarding spending and size.
EIA compared each state's average per-pupil spending in 2002-03 with the per-pupil spending of the largest school district within that state. The states are then ranked by how much the district's spending exceeded (or fell below) the state average. The numbers were derived from Table 17 of the Census Bureau report.
Hawaii is not included in the ranking because it has a single, statewide school district. Maine and Vermont are also missing because in 2002-03 they had no school district with an enrollment of 10,000 or more. The Census Bureau report includes statistics only from those districts meeting that enrollment threshold.
As you can see, the differences are significant, both positive and negative. Only eight states had their largest district's spending fall within 3% of the state average. The largest district in 29 states spent more than the state average, while in 18 states it spent less.
The Census Bureau report is available at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/school.html.
1) New Jersey: $12,202; Newark: $17,652 (+44.7%)
2) Missouri: $7,262; St. Louis: $10,170 (+40.04%)
3) Minnesota: $8,073; Minneapolis: $11,304 (+40.02%)
4) Massachusetts: $10,223; Boston: $13,730 (+34.3%)
5) Connecticut: $10,372; Hartford: $13,292 (+28.2%)
6) Arkansas: $6,408; Little Rock: $7,994 (+24.8%)
7) Washington: $7,101; Seattle: $8,649 (+21.8%)
8) Idaho: $6,034; Boise: $7,314 (+21.2%)
9) Virginia: $7,832; Fairfax County: $9,488 (+21.1%)
10) Indiana: $7,948; Indianapolis: $9,604 (+20.8%)
11) Maryland: $8,921; Montgomery County: $10,580 (+18.6%)
12) Ohio: $8,555; Columbus: $9,946 (+16.3%)
13) Kentucky: $6,647; Jefferson County: $7,663 (+15.3%)
14) Wisconsin: $8,993; Milwaukee: $10,352 (+15.1%)
15) Tennessee: $6,201; Memphis: $7,005 (+13.0%)
16) Iowa: $7,534; Des Moines: $8,434 (+11.9%)
17) California: $7,691; Los Angeles: $8,447 (+9.8%)
18) Delaware: $9,669; Christina: $10,532 (+8.9%)
19) North Carolina: $6,635; Charlotte/Mecklenburg: $7,188 (+8.3%)
20) Florida: $6,450; Miami-Dade County: $6,956 (+7.84%)
21) Colorado: $7,316; Denver: $7,888 (+7.82%)
22) Oregon: $7,460; Portland: $7,921 (+6.2%)
23) Rhode Island: $9,315; Providence: $9,873 (+6.0%)
24) Michigan: $8,588; Detroit: $9,063 (+5.5%)
25) North Dakota: $7,153; Fargo: $7,328 (+2.4%)
26) Texas: $7,076; Houston: $7,236 (+2.3%)
27) Kansas: $7,292; Wichita Unified: $7,427 (+1.9%)
28) West Virginia: $8,218; Kanawha County: $8,304 (+1.0%)
29) Oklahoma: $6,127; Tulsa: $6,129 (+0.03%)
30) Alabama: $6,395; Mobile County: $6,295 (-1.6%)
31) New York: $12,140; New York City: $11,920 (-1.8%)
32) Georgia: $7,724; Gwinnett County: $7,545 (-2.3%)
33) Louisiana: $6,868; Orleans Parish: $6,560 (-4.5%)
34) Nevada: $6,084; Clark County: $5,774 (-5.1%)
35) Illinois: $8,409; Chicago: $7,967 (-5.3%)
36) South Dakota: $6,532; Sioux Falls: $6,152 (-5.8%)
37) New Mexico: $6,870; Albuquerque: $6,414 (-6.6%)
38) Arizona: $5,672; Mesa Unified: $5,289 (-6.8%)
39) Utah: $4,860; Jordan County: $4,520 (-7.0%)
40) Nebraska: $7,743; Omaha: $7,187 (-7.2%)
41) South Carolina: $7,047; Greenville County: $6,350 (-9.9%)
42) Wyoming: $9,202; Laramie County: $8,169 (-11.2%)
43) Montana: $7,449; Billings: $6,303 (-15.4%)
44) New Hampshire: $8,285; Manchester: $6,749 (-18.5%)
45) Pennsylvania: $9,367; Philadelphia: $7,544 (-19.5%)
46) Alaska: $9,919; Anchorage: $7,826 (-21.1%)
47) Mississippi: $5,816; Desoto County: $4,444 (-23.6%)* * *
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.
SubscribeRemove
..
..
..
..