________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT April 05, 2004 Vol. 4, No. 15 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... S.166: PRIVATE PROVIDER EXPRESSES CONCERNS ABOUT BILL The early education initiative, S.166, was passed unanimously in the Senate last week (see story below) but is igniting strong concerns among some private preschool and child care providers. Richard J. Courcelle, director of finance and planning for the Vermont Achievement Center (VAC) in Rutland, the state's largest early education program, hopes to be able to testify about the potential negative impacts on private providers if S.166 were to become law. "My greatest concern is that, traditionally and historically, early education and care - preschool in particular - have been in the domain of the private sector," says Courcelle. "This bill could significantly tilt the preschool programs in favor of public providers." That's because S.166 does not have any provisions that allow money to follow the child to the preschool provider of the parents' choice. Instead, S.166 merely calls for cooperative arrangements between public and private providers, an approach that Courcelle and others are skeptical about. He believes that once public providers have access to preschool money, they will be reluctant to give it up. "Currently VAC operates several satellite programs at local elementary schools," Courcelle says, "and we are keeping an eye on developments at these schools to see if the public school will want to set up their own preschool program instead of relying on VAC." Proud of VAC's record of national accreditation, Courcelle points out that VAC has invested heavily in human and capital resources and has a long history of providing quality early education programs in specialized markets. "I'd ask why are we reinventing the wheel here?" he says. "I'd ask why they don't require public schools to use existing programs and allow parents to choose?"  S.166 TO BE DISCUSSED IN HOUSE AFTER EASY SENATE PASSAGE When S.166, the early education initiative, came up for a vote last week, not a single senator voted against it, even though Senate Minority Leader John Bloomer (R-Rutland County) had received a letter from VAC's Richard Courcelle expressing concerns about the bill's impact on private preschool providers. VAC is located in Rutland County. Two other Rutland County Senators - Hull Maynard and Kevin Mullin (both Republicans) - attempted to have an amendment added to the bill that would have allowed parents to receive the equivalent of 37 percent of the "adjusted base education payment for that year" follow the child to the preschool provider of the parent's choice. But even this tepid choice provision proved too heady for the anti-choice Senate. Only Senators Bloomer (R-Rutland County), Julius Canns (R-Caledonia), Vince Illuzzi (R-Essex-Orleans), Hull Maynard (R-Rutland County), Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland), and Mark Shepard (R-Bennington) voted for it. When this didn't pass, however, even these six senators joined with the majority to pass S.166 without any choice provisions. (To view the bill as passed and the amendment that was offered, go to the Senate Journal for Friday, April 2 at: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/journal/sj040402.htm) Now the House is poised to take up the issue with testimony scheduled in the House Education Committee at least three times this week. First up will be Commissioner of Education Richard Cate on Tuesday, then Kim Kaiser of the Agency of Human Services on Wednesday, and Senator Jim Condos (D-Chittenden), the bill's main sponsor, on Thursday, along with a committee discussion.  *   *   * COMMENTARY  A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD by Libby Sternberg  One of the arguments that school choice opponents regularly use to block choice programs is the need for a "level playing field" between public and private schools. Private schools enjoy many advantages, opponents say, and therefore it's unfair to expect public schools to compete until these so-called advantages are removed, thus "leveling the playing field." And yet, the early education initiative, S.166, not only does not have a level playing field between public and private providers of early education programs. It has a playing field tilted so steeply in favor of public schools that private providers are likely to slide off the board entirely. The "advantage" the public schools will have under S.166, in fact, is the same one they have now (that, oddly enough, is never mentioned in the "level playing field" discussion of choice at the K-12 level). That advantage is - money. S.166 gives money to schools that set up preschool programs by counting students in those programs as part of the average daily membership (ADM). The ADM is used to compute how much funding schools get each year from the state. So public schools that set up preschools get more cash. But wait, there's more to this tilted field of public school advantage - parents who choose the public preschool programs are unlikely to have to pay for them. Hmm...let's think this through. In one corner, we have a preschool program that is free. In the other corner, we have one that charges. Both are of comparable quality. Which would you choose? This un-level field was voted on by every Senator in attendance on the day the vote was taken, despite the fact that every Senator in the Statehouse probably has thriving private preschool and child care providers in their counties.  Now S.166 moves on to the House. Will Representatives there let money follow the child into preschool? Or will school choice be such a bitter pill to swallow that they'd rather see quality early ed providers slide into oblivion before voting for even a modest choice provision in an early education bill? VER has expressed concerns with the early education initiative already. They are not limited to its lack of choice. We have strong reservations about investing in programs that could lead to an exponential growth in education costs over the years without a sound basis for doing so. And we also have fears that a public preschool movement could eventually - perhaps years away - lead to mandatory preschooling. But the lack of a choice component - one that allows money to follow the child - should give even legislators supportive of early ed programs pause.  *   *   * ELSEWHERE  FROM THE FROM THE TEACHERS QUALITY BULLETIN (http://www.nctq.org) TEACHER PAY: PAY FOR PERFORMANCE PLAN PROCEEDS As many of you have surely read by now, Denver teachers have recently agreed to a significant performance pay plan, made possible by an endorsement from the local Denver teachers' union (despite not being supported by the national union). If all goes as planned, the new pay package would offer teachers the opportunity to earn more money for an array of activities and credentials including student achievement, as measured by test scores, favorable evaluations, additional education and training (provided they can show how it benefits their students), and for working in hard-to-staff schools and/or subjects. While the NEA expressed inevitable skepticism ("To link an individual teacher's pay with a student's performance over a year does not make sense to the average person"), others, including Frederick Hess, director of education studies at the American Enterprise Institute, observed that the amount of the incentives (e.g. $1,000 for moving to a low-performing school) would not be enough to bring about real change, especially in the unequal distribution of teachers among high and low poverty schools. In any case, the road ahead is a long one fraught with potential potholes as the union-district administration coalition will have to convince Denver voters to pass a $25 million tax hike in November of 2005. If it can be pulled off, even with blemishes, it would be a significant step into lightly (and most unsuccessfully) treaded ground. "Next Pay-Plan Decision Up to Denver Voters" Education Week, March 31, 2004 http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=29Denver.h23&keywords=Next%20pay%2Dplan%20decision "Paid on a curve" The Christian Science Monitor, March 30, 2004 http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0330/p11s01-legn.html  *   *   * SHARING THE WEALTH In the past few years, two of the most significant trends in American education have been the increasing focus on standards and accountability culminating in the passage of No Child Left Behind and the prominent attention given to teacher quality, manifested for example by the popularity of National Board certification and states' willingness to subsidize the program so heavily. In a recent policy brief issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, Andrew J Rotherham (also chair of NCTQ's board), explores the intersection --or lack thereof-- of these two important educational goals. Rotherham observes that the hugely popular and expensive National Board movement has not sufficiently joined the national effort to reduce the achievement gap, particularly in that there is little motivation for National Board teachers to consider working in low performing schools where their expertise could be best used. Despite an estimated $372 million investment by federal, state and private sources into the National Board since it's creation in 1987, very few Board-certified teachers work in the schools that need them the most. For example, in South Carolina, one wealthy suburban district has 254 Board-certified teachers, all of whom receive substantially higher pay from the state for their achievement, twice as many as the number of Board-certified teachers in 12 poor districts combined. Rotherham encourages policymakers -many of whom are discovering they can no longer afford such generous bonus packages to all of the Board-certified teachers in their states-- to link their incentives to Board-certified teachers who help deliver the NCLB mandate for closing the achievement gap. One might argue Rotherham's proposal doesn't go far enough as his plan still envisions states providing incentives to all Board-certified teachers at some level-just more if they agree to teach in poor schools. Considering the crisis level of low academic achievement that the nation experiences in its poorest schools and that every pot of money has a bottom, states may need to consider targeting all bonuses towards teachers' direct contribution to reduction of the achievement gap. In any case, Rotherham's report is an important reminder that further investment into the National Board must not be made without considering the larger context. "Opportunity and Responsibility for National Board Certified Teachers" By Andrew J. Rotherham, Progressive Policy Institute, March 2004 http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=135&contentID=252498 "Nationally Certified Teachers Thrive in the South" Education Week, March 24, 2004 http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=28Certify.h23  NEW NEA POLITICAL GROUP TO INFLUENCE WHAT "AMERICA LEARNS" FROM THE EDUCATION INTELLIGENCE AGENCY http://www.www.eiaonline.com  Faced with Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Department of Labor investigations concerning its political activities and reporting, the National Education Association has created a new advocacy organization that will be able to use both dues money and state PAC money to advance the union's goals. Called "America Learns," the new group is a "social welfare organization," as defined by the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4). The ACLU and the NRA are examples of 501(c)(4) organizations. Such groups are allowed to lobby, provided it isn't their primary activity. They may not participate directly or indirectly in political campaigns. The organization's primary focus will be on "spreading the word about the misguided so-called NCLB law, and how to fix it." Any doubt that the organization will be controlled by NEA was erased by the identity of its board of directors. Anne Davis, president of the Illinois Education Association, will chair the board. The other two members are Robert Bonazzi, executive director of the New Jersey Education Association, and Maurice Joseph, NEA's deputy general counsel. The executive director for America Learns is John Hein, most recently the associate executive director of government relations for the California Teachers Association. NEA is asking its state affiliates to contribute a minimum of $1 per member to America Learns, which can come from the union's general fund, PAC fund, or outside donations - though these are not 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 

---

........