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 12, 2004 Vol. 4, No. 16
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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.comFINALLY A VOTE
School choice came up for a vote in the House last week in an oblique way. While the resulting defeat was no shock, the margin of defeat was a bit surprising. On Thursday, Rep. Steve Webster (R-Randolph) introduced a motion to pull H.511, the public school choice bill supported by the governor, from the House Education committee for a full House vote. The ultimate vote was 92 nays to 48 yeas.
While several legislators explained their negative votes as being based on process and not the issue itself, that argument is weak. The committee process is used to "vet" an issue, to explore policy ramifications and needs. The school choice issue has been discussed in some form or another for at least the past eight years in Montpelier and probably just as much on the campaign trail.
In other words, school choice has been "vetted" in public debate and private conversation. In addition, the governor's State of the State address included it as a priority. Any legislator who still had unanswered questions about the issue had ample opportunity to explore it on his or her own time if need be. Information --both pro and con-- is available from many sources.
The vote on Thursday was an excellent opportunity for legislators to show the strength of their support (or lack of it). And the vote was, as VER previously suggested it would be, instructive. Many legislators who have paid lip service to the issue in the past voted against the resolution to bring the bill out of committee.
A full list of the votes, copied directly from the Journal of the House for April 8, 2004, is below, along with legislators' explanations for their votes. VER has added an asterisk next to the names of nay-voters who live in tuition towns that already enjoy school choice.
Several representatives' remarks call out for comment. For example, Rep. Richard Marron (R-Stowe) worried that school choice would have an adverse impact on small schools at the same time he voiced his support for consolidation, which often leads directly to small school closure. Go figure. And Rep. Peg Flory (R-Pittsford) made a curious remark that implied she needed a permission slip from her local school board before casting a pro-school choice vote.
School choice supporters may print the following information and keep it on hand for November. You can be sure the Vermont-NEA and its sister organizations will be touting the vote as an overwhelming endorsement of their point of view.
One final comment -- when the bill was stalled in House Education, a House leader made the private remark that if school choice supporters wanted the issue to move forward, they needed to "elect more Republicans." As this vote indicates, that's clearly not the solution.
* * *
H. 511
Rep. Webster of Randolph moved that the Committee on Education be relieved of House bill entitled
An act relating to public school choice;
Pending the question, Shall the committee on Education be relieved of the bill? Rep. Duffy of Rutland City demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the committee on Education be relieved of the bill? was decided in the was decided in the negative. Yeas, 48. Nays, 92.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Adams of Hartland
Allaire of Rutland City
Bailey of Hyde Park
Baker of West Rutland
Bostic of St. Johnsbury
Carey of Chester
Clark of St. Johnsbury
Crawford of Burke
Crowley of West Rutland
DePoy of Rutland City
Donahue of Northfield
Duffy of Rutland City
Dunsmore of Georgia
Endres of Milton
Errecart of Shelburne
Gray of Barre Town
Haas of Rutland City
Hall of Newport City
Houston of Ferrisburgh
Hube of Londonderry
Hudson of Lyndon
Johnson of Canaan
Kennedy of Chelsea
Ketchum of Bethel
Kilmartin of Newport City
Larocque of Barnet
Larrabee of Danville
LaVoie of Swanton
Livingston of Manchester
Mazur of South Burlington
McAllister of Highgate
Metzger of Milton
O'Donnell of Vernon
Otterman of Topsham
Peaslee of Guildhall
Robinson of Richmond
Schiavone of Shelburne
Shaw of Derby
Sheltra of Derby
Smith of New Haven
Sunderland of Rutland Town
Sweetser of Essex
Webster of Randolph
Westman of Cambridge
Winters of Swanton
Winters of Williamstown
Wood of Brandon
Wright of BurlingtonThose who voted in the negative are:
Allard of St. Albans Town
Amidon of Charlotte
Anderson of Woodstock
Aswad of Burlington
Atkins of Winooski
Audette of South Burlington
Bartlett of Dover *
Bohi of Hartford
Bolduc of Barton
Botzow of Pownal
Brennan of Colchester
Brooks of Montpelier
Brown of Walden *
Chen of Mendon *
Clark of Vergennes
Connell of Warren
Corcoran of Bennington
Cross of Winooski
Dakin of Colchester
Darrow of Dummerston
Deen of Westminster
Donaghy of Poultney
Donovan of Burlington
Dostis of Waterbury
Edwards of Brattleboro
Emmons of Springfield
Fallar of Tinmouth *
Fisher of Lincoln
Flory of Pittsford
French of Randolph
Gervais of Enosburg
Head of South Burlington
Heath of Westford *
Helm of Castleton
Hingtgen of Burlington
Howrigan of Fairfield *
Hummel of Underhill
Jewett of Ripton
Johnson of South Hero *
Kainen of Hartford
Kenyon of Bradford
Keogh of Burlington
Kiss of Burlington
Kitzmiller of Montpelier
Koch of Barre Town
Krawczyk, A. of Bennington
Krawczyk, J. of Bennington
Larson of Burlington
Lippert of Hinesburg
Maier of Middlebury
Marek of Newfane
Marron of Stowe
Martin of Springfield
Masland of Thetford
McCullough of Williston
McLaughlin of Royalton
Milkey of Brattleboro
Miller of Shaftsbury
Miller of Elmore *
Molloy of Arlington
Monti of Barre City
Morrissey of Bennington
Myers of Essex
Nease of Johnson
Nitka of Ludlow
Nuovo of Middlebury
Obuchowski of Rockingham
Parent of St. Albans City
Partridge of Windham
Perry of Richford
Peterson of Williston
Pillsbury of Brattleboro
Pugh of South Burlington
Reese of Pomfret
Rodgers of Glover
Rusten of Halifax *
Seibert of Norwich
Severance of Colchester
Shand of Weathersfield *
Sharpe of Bristol
Shouldice of Calais
Smith of Morristown
Starr of Troy
Sweaney of Windsor
Sweeney of Colchester
Symington of Jericho
Towne of Berlin
Tracy of Burlington
Trombley of Grand Isle *
Valliere of Barre City
Young of Orwell
Zuckerman of Burlington[* nay-voters who live in tuition towns that already enjoy school choice]
Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:
Branagan of Georgia
Grad of Moretown
Hunt of Essex
Keenan of St. Albans City
Kirker of Essex
Klein of East Montpelier
Rogers of Castleton
Vincent of Waterbury
Waite of Pawlet* * *
Rep. Clark of Vergennes explained his vote as follows:
"Mr. Speaker: I vote no on this request to keep the committee process intact. This was not a vote on the issue of school choice which ought to be discussed but on the merits of relieving a committee of a bill they've worked on but not yet competed."
* * *
Rep. Flory of Pittsford explained her vote as follows:
"Mr. Speaker: While I support school choice, I can't support this process. In addition, I recently promised my local school board that, prior to voting on any school choice bill, I would discuss possible ramifications with them. I cannot break that promise."
* * *
Rep. Koch of Barre Town explained his vote as follows:
"Mr. Speaker: I support school choice and would have liked the Education committee to report this bill to the floor. But, I also believe in the committee process, and I need to support that process even when it produces results I do not like."
* * *
Rep. Marron of Stowe explained his vote as follows:
"Mr. Speaker: I have supported public school choice in the past and I worked hard to gain passage of Act 150 when I was a member of the House Education committee.
I am concerned about the impact that this bill would have on small schools in Vermont. As Chair of the cost containment committee this past summer, I am convinced that consolidation of schools should be encouraged but decision should be made locally. This bill might have the effect of increasing the cost of education.
* * *
Rep. Morrissey of Bennington explained her vote as follows:
"Mr. Speaker: Though I am a strong supporter of school choice, I vote against this process of relieving the House Education committee of this important issue."
* * *
Rep. O'Donnell of Vernon explained her vote as follows:
"Mr. Speaker: The town I live in has had school choice for many years. Two of my children have gone out of the school district and two have not. None of the personal decisions made by the residents have in any way hurt our Union School. But, they have all helped the families who have made them. I look forward to the day when every Vermonter can make the choice for their child."
HOUSE ED STILL LOOKING AT S.166The House Education Committee continues to fill its schedule with scrutiny of the early education initiative, S.166, but if the witness list is any indication, it doesn't appear that many naysayers will be weighing in.
On Wednesday, Barbara Postman of the Vermont Children's Forum will testify. She will be followed by John McCalughry of the Ethan Allen Institute, the lone discouraging voice heard when the Senate Education Committee vetted the bill. Then Bill Talbott of the Vermont Department of Education, which supports the early ed initiative, is up in the afternoon. On Thursday, various principals from public schools are speaking to the committee, along with Julie Cadwailer Staub of the Childcare Fund of Vermont.
Given the make-up of House Ed, S.166 is likely to be voted out with at least six favorable votes.
* * *
ELSEWHEREFROM THE NEW DEMOCRATS Education Bulletin
DON'T GIVE A MUFFIN TO THESE MOOSE
There is a great series of children's books with titles like If You Give a Moose a Muffin, If You Give a Pig a Pancake, and If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. The storylines suggest that if you give a moose a muffin, a pig a pancake, or a mouse a cookie they will inevitably want something more, like milk or syrup, to go with it, and then something to go with that, and will never stop asking for more.
Though the books are aimed at young children they hold a lesson for adults involved in today's NCLB debate. On March 25, The New York Times reported on a letter from 14 states asking for changes to NCLB's accountability system. These states seek to use "growth models" to measure school progress relatively instead of the current adequate yearly progress (AYP) system that requires states to establish common, and eventually higher, performance targets for all schools based on state standards and tests.
Superficially it sounds like a reasonable request. Some schools have so few students proficient on state tests that it would be virtually impossible for them to reach even modest goals in a single year. Isn't this just more evidence of NCLB's nefarious intent and fatal flaws? After all, even many of the law's supporters are uncomfortable penalizing schools that began far behind but are making significant progress.
No, it's not. For starters, NCLB's "safe harbor" already provides a route for such schools to make AYP, even if they do not meet state goals for that year, if they steadily decrease the percentage of students not proficient and make progress on other indicators. Indeed what advocates of substituting growth models are really asking is to be allowed to lower the bar for how much schools must close achievement gaps.
Rather than flaws of NCLB, the call to water down the law shows the extent of inequities in education and why NCLB's relentless focus on forcing states and school districts to confront them is vital. Although we live in a nation that is rightly proud of its many outstanding public schools, we also live in one where the average African-American and Hispanic 12th grader reads and does math about as well as the average white eighth grader. According to the Urban Institute and Harvard Civil Rights Project, Hispanic and black students have about a 50 percent chance of finishing high school, and completion rates in many urban communities are substantially lower. As organized interest groups gin up resistance to NCLB by arguing that achievement gap data don't really represent what's going on in desirable communities with overall high-performing schools, it's worth remembering that these statistics represent real, live children -- and they do go to school somewhere! Nor are achievement gaps solely an urban problem. New NAEP data shows racial achievement gaps exist in all kinds of communities. It's these persistent problems -- not NCLB's focus on addressing them -- that is slowly eroding support for public education.
California Democratic Congressman George Miller told The New York Times that the problem with allowing growth models to substitute for the existing AYP parameters is that under the former, "they [low- performing schools] are sort of always arriving, but they never get there. We want all of our children to be proficient in reading and math and other subjects. Growth alone can't be good enough."
Miller is exactly right. And NCLB does not require schools to achieve 100 percent test scores or even get 100 percent of students to pass. It merely requires states to strive to ensure that almost all students (excluding those for whom such standards are inappropriate) achieve at a state established level of proficiency on pretty basic measures of reading and math. Moreover, schools should not be held accountable for single year test scores, and NCLB gives states flexibility to average school test scores over multiple years and employ other measures to ensure score validity. Cutting through the jargon, this means ensuring schools are teaching students to read and do math at least as well as those on both sides of the NCLB debate expect for their own children.
Besides, growth models can be integrated with NCLB. States can, and should, acknowledge and reward schools succeeding in challenging circumstances and relative to similar schools. But ironically, allowing growth models to substitute for fixed targets could potentially take us back not just to before NCLB but to the pre-1994 era of differing standards and accountability schemes for Title I and non-Title I schools, albeit under the guise of a more sophisticated approach to accountability.
Though not by any means perfect, NCLB moves the ball on equity. But doing so is a political as well as a substantive challenge. An Achilles heel of democratic government is that, regardless of the merits, organized groups can often work their will against disorganized beneficiaries of particular policies. In the case of education accountability, there will always be calls for change when consequences start to matter, whether now or -- if lawmakers should unfortunately decide to punt -- again in several years. Giving these moose a muffin now is not only poor policy but will simply embolden others to want something to go with it, and then something to go with that, and before long there won't be much left of NCLB except a lot of rhetoric about standards, expectations, and improvement wrapped around a toothless law allowing everyone to happily say, "see, we supported the goals of NCLB all along!"
In any event, if lawmakers can't even hang tough on the notion that public schools should strive to ensure most students can read and do math, it's going to become increasingly difficult to resist, intellectually at least, the libertarian/conservative position that where schools are demonstrably not working parents should be allowed to use as they see fit the public money dedicated to educating their children. In that environment, NCLB will probably look pretty good in hindsight.
Further Reading:
"14 States Ask U.S. to Revise Some Education Law Rules,"
Diana Jean Schemo, New York Times (03/25/04):
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/education/25CHIL.htmlIf You Take a Mouse to School, Laura Numeroff and Felicia Bond (2002):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=newdemocratso-20&path=tg/detail/-/0060283289"Real Education Solutions,"
Sacramento Bee Editorial (04/31/04):
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/1255005p-8317670c.html"Paige Finds Schools Act a Tough Sell,"
Elizabeth Shogren, Los Angeles Times (03/29/04):
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-paige29mar29,1,6445832.story?coll=la-news-politics-national"Education Act Splits Chiefs,"
George Archibald, Washington Times (03/29/04):
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040328-115805-6114r.htm"Losing Our Future: How Minority Youth are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis,"
Gary Orfield, Daniel Iosen, Johanna Weld, and Christopher B. Swanson, Harvard Civil Rights Project (02/25/04):
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/dropouts/call_dropout04.php"Who Graduates? Who Doesn't?"
Christopher B. Swanson, Urban Institute (02/25/04):
http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=8742"NAEP Urban Scores Revisited,"
21st Century Schools Project Bulletin, Vol. 4, no. 1 (01/13/04):
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?cp=3&knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=900001&contentid=252320
FROM THE EDUCATION INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
http://www.www.eiaonline.comBAD NEWS FOR SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION ADVOCATES
Today, the Arkansas Board of Education began the process of consolidating 57 small school districts. Consolidation was signed into law after months of heated debate and compromises, but the final conclusion was that the move would make the state’s school system both operationally and financially more efficient.
Meanwhile, University of Maine education professor Gordon Donaldson conducted a study of that state’s school consolidation effort, which dates back to 1957. "The argument is that we want consolidation to save on administrative costs, but that’s not what happened after the state’s huge investment in consolidation," Donaldson told the Bangor Daily News.
Donaldson explained that bigger districts and bigger schools required bigger buildings. "With bigger units came more administrative costs," he said. In addition, school systems began to establish business offices and create a series of jobs for assistant superintendents. "We ended up reinvesting in a new level of middle administrators," he said.
Donaldson’s examination of finances indicated that per-pupil spending accelerated after consolidation, while it reduced community and parental involvement.
"And there’s no evidence it increased quality," he said.
* * *
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
..
..
..
..