________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT April 20, 2004 Vol. 4, No. 17 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... PUBLIC HEARING ON S.166 SET FOR WEDNESDAY The House Education Committee will hold a public hearing on S.166, the early education initiative spearheaded by Sen. Jim Condos (D-Chittenden), on Wednesday, April 21 at 3:00 p.m. in room 10 of the Statehouse. For more information, call the legislative council at 802.828.2971. Both Sen. Condos and House Education Chairman Howard Crawford (R-Burke) were on Vermont Public Radio's Switchboard program last week. During that program, Sen. Condos claimed that the program would not put private providers out of business because it allows for collaborative arrangements between public and private preschools and daycares. He cited several successful Burlington cooperative ventures as an example. As the rest of the state knows, what works in Chittenden County doesn't always work elsewhere. Such is the case in the Rutland region where several vehement opponents to involving private providers in anything dealing with public education are in positions of power. For example, Rutland Northeast Superintendent William J. Mathis is a vocal opponent to programs that allow kids to take public money to private providers. He is unlikely to allow it to happen in his districts even if a bill "encourages" it. This week, the House Education Committee will hear from some representatives of private providers. On Thursday, both Richard Courcelle and Joann Mattison of the Vermont Achievement Center, a major private provider in the state, will testify. Also on the Committee's schedule, however, are Kim Keiser of the Agency of Human Services, Bill Talbott of the Vermont Department of Education, and several early education advocates.  PLYMOUTH VOTES TO CLOSE SCHOOL Last week, the town of Plymouth voted, 60-46, to close its elementary school in July 2005, according to an article in the Rutland Herald. Rising costs and declining enrollments appear to be the cause of the vote. However, those in favor of keeping the school open will circulate a petition for a revote. Although a clear majority supported the school's closure, you wouldn't be able to tell that from the people quoted in the article. Not a single quote from anyone on the majority side of the vote appeared in the Rutland Herald story. The lengthy article quoted at least eight opponents to the school closure but not one supporter, despite the fact that 60 people supported the closure option.  GET CREATIVE - WRITE A SCHOOL CHOICE AD! Vermonters for Better Education, the publisher of this newsletter, is in the process of soliciting radio ad ideas to promote school choice. VBE is working with a former advertising executive who is volunteering his time to come up with pro-school choice messages designed to educate the public on the importance of this issue. In the meantime, we'd like to hear your ideas for radio scripts! A 30-second ad limits you to approximately 75 words or less, however, so sharpen your editing pens. Submit your ideas to VBE at VTBetterEd@aol.com or mail to VBE, 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701. Send a donation too! The best of the best will be posted eventually on this web site.  FOR TEACHERS: LITERACY PROGRAMS TAUGHT BY STARS IN THE FIELD The Greenwood Institute will offer several literacy courses this summer headed by nationally-known reading experts. Pasted below is information from the Institute itself on these programs: Literacy courses include Language I, taught by Dr. Louisa Moats and Bruce Rosow, July 11-16 2004. This course provides teachers with a working knowledge of phonology, phonetics and orthography. Language II taught by Bruce Rosow with a guest appearance from Dr. Moats, focuses on the meaningful levels of language and will be offered July 18-23, 2004. Michael Minsky and Marcia Hamm will teach the Diagnostic-Prescriptive Practicum from July 28-August 12, 2004. This course gives participants a chance to apply what they have learned in Language I and II within a multisensory tutorial framework. Courses are certified by The International Multisensory Language Education Council. The Institute will also be offering a new course in social pragmatics skills this summer from June 20-25, 2004. Educators Nancy Aldrich and Annie Quest will provide the tools participants need to select, evaluate, develop and use curriculum for teaching social skills in the school setting. Participants in any of the courses can choose to receive graduate credits from Vermont College. This summer's Language I and II classes will be held at Ascutney Mountain Resort where overnight accommodations are available. The other courses will be held at an area public school. For more information please call, write or e-mail The Greenwood Institute, 14 Greenwood Lane, Putney, VT 05346, Tel (802)-387-4545, E-mail: institute@greenwood.org.  *   *   * COMMENTARY  THE HEAT IS ON by Libby Sternberg Over the past decade, pressure has increased on schools - public and private alike - to demonstrate they are fulfilling their mission. If schools are truly the "great equalizer," providing children of limited means an opportunity to access the American dream, then schools should be able to show that kids are actually learning something. Unfortunately, a variety of indicators has shown that is not always the case. Standardized test scores for low-income and minority populations continue to lag, often showing that these populations are not even near acquiring basic skills that would open the door to more complex skill sets. Colleges and universities now offer remedial programs as a matter of course to make up for the failures of high schools. (Keep in mind that students entering college are often the higher-scorers on standardized tests.) And business leaders continue to complain about the lack of basic understanding of fundamentals among young adults entering the work force. In short, the heat is on. The No Child Left Behind Act has turned up the temperature as well, forcing states to show that money targeted at low-income populations is actually doing the job it's supposed to be doing, that taxpayers are getting their money's worth.  It used to be that when school system failures came to light, a stock answer was "we need more money." But that response is increasingly difficult to sell given the large amounts of cash pumped into the system year after year -- no, make that decade after decade. So the finger of blame has shifted to other issues. For example, perhaps some children don't fare well because they aren't "ready to learn" when they enter school. The reasoning goes something like this -- some kids, low-income kids in particular, enter school without having mastered core ideas and concepts that are the building blocks upon which other learning is structured. If we catch them early enough, we'll save money down the road. There's truth in that theory. There are, most assuredly, many kids who come from homes where schooling isn't valued or where parents aren't aware of the need to instill in their children learning-readiness lessons. And there are homes where kids are not treated as they should be, to put it mildly. Children in these groups present a challenge to all schools. But they have always been with us. During the Depression, for example, many kids came to school from homes where money was tight, where their parents didn't speak English, and where schooling had its place as long as it didn't compete with any money-earning possibilities. Schools are supposed to take those kids and give them fundamental gateway skills, at the very least, so that they can rise above their circumstances. Yet schools don't seem to be doing that now. Where to point the finger of blame? The push for early education programs points the finger at the kids themselves. Maybe we should be pointing that finger elsewhere -- perhaps at reading and math programs whose trendiness masked their ineffectiveness for too long. Perhaps we should point the finger of blame at schools of education that focused heavily on pedagogical techniques and not enough on subject content. Perhaps we should point the finger at a system that forces kids to go to schools that might not meet their needs.  Perhaps we need to examine all those areas before pointing the finger at the kids themselves.  *   *   * NOTABLE QUOTABLE  From "VERMONT LOSING CHOICE" Burlington Free Press Editorial Sunday, April 18, 2004 "...Choice should be a cornerstone of educational policy in Vermont. Schools should serve the educational needs of children and families, not the convenience of the teachers' union and school officials. Students should be able to attend the school best able to help them achieve their academic and personal potential. "Such a system doesn't exist in Vermont. And it won't as long as the Legislature and policymakers cater to educational insiders rather than to parents."  *   *   * ELSEWHERE  FROM "THE GADFLY" the e-newsletter of the Fordham Foundation  MANIPULATING HISTORY TEACHERS If America's history teachers were broadly educated, deeply knowledgeable about the content that they're responsible for imparting to students, and free to draw their information, textbooks, and other instructional materials from whatever sources they judge best, all within a framework of sound academic standards and results-based accountability -- under that dreamy scenario there'd be no reason for Sandra Stotsky to tackle the study that yielded Fordham's newest report, The Stealth Curriculum: Manipulating America's History Teachers. The reality, however, is that many history teachers don't know much history. And the textbooks on which they depend are vast, themeless compendia of dull, dated, and denatured information. (See A Consumer's Guide to High School History Textbooks -- http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=329 -- for more information.) Thus has arisen an immense cottage industry to supply teachers with pre-digested "supplemental materials" and "professional development" as part of an effort to prepare them better to teach about difficult issues. As usual, this enterprise began with laudable intentions. Post 9/11, for example, how could we reasonably expect teachers who had never studied Islamic history to explain it to their pupils, especially if their textbooks lacked pertinent information? How could we expect them to handle complicated and emotionally charged subjects like the Holocaust and figure out what lessons to distill? To escort youngsters safely through the thicket of political correctness and ethnic politics that now surrounds such formerly benign holidays as Columbus Day and Thanksgiving? So we try to compensate and backfill. Innumerable organizations and agencies, public and private, large and small, commercial and non-profit, create and deliver "supplemental" materials and "in-service education" or "professional development" for teachers. School systems and state education agencies. Publishers of every sort. Advocacy groups. Universities, research centers, and think-tanks. Itinerant teacher trainers. Cable networks and film producers. It's a long list, engaging many people and spending many millions. (Nobody knows how much.) Some is subsidized by tax dollars or philanthropy. Some is baldly commercial. Much comes out of school system budgets. Yet we know staggeringly little about how good these materials and workshops are, or whether the information they present is balanced and accurate. We know even less about their efficacy and intellectual integrity. This turns out to be a vast dark continent within our education system. It's also a troubled continent. Sandra Stotsky spotted the problem during her tenure as senior associate commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education (1999-2003) as well as during a distinguished career in education research, teacher preparation, and the development of academic standards. She began to collect examples of supplemental materials and professional development workshops aimed at K-12 history and social studies teachers. She attended some of those workshops and summer institutes. And she grew ever more alarmed by what she found. It appeared that the creation of many of these "supplemental" materials, and the leadership of workshops by which teachers' knowledge is supposedly enhanced, had fallen into the eager hands of interest groups and ideologues yearning to use America's classrooms to shape the minds of tomorrow's citizens by manipulating what today's teachers are introducing into the lessons of today's children. Yet this was happening with little or no public awareness. In effect, the K-12 social studies curriculum was being subtly politicized by adult interests working outside the closely scrutinized domains of statewide standards, textbooks, pre-service teacher preparation, and state certification. For this report, Stotsky separated the terrain into two parts, one dealing with supplemental materials, the other with professional development workshops. The shortcomings she spotted vary by topic, of course. But most share these features: under the guise of heightening teachers' awareness of previously marginalized groups, they manipulate teachers (and thus their pupils) to view the history of freedom as the history of oppression and to favor cultures that don't value individual rights over those that do. Is there a remedy? Stotsky would wipe out much of this "supplemental" stuff and replace it with something very different. Alternatively, she suggests several shrewd ways of mitigating the problems if this enterprise persists. So far, so good. We should certainly seek to compensate for weaknesses in the knowledge base of today's teachers while shielding them from manipulative mischief and reducing their risk of becoming unwitting pawns of ideologues. Over the long haul, however, we must insist that future teachers be better educated from the get-go or, as NCLB puts it, "highly qualified" in the subjects they will impart to children. Nowhere is this more important than in history. But better-educated teachers ought not be equated with more time in ed school, maybe not even on campus (although well-conceived history courses taught by first-rate historians are hard to beat). People can also teach themselves history, pick it up from reading, the History Channel, even movies. The key is to insist that, however they learn it, tomorrow's teachers must know it -- and prove it -- before confronting children in the classroom. It may be sufficient to insist that they pass rigorous subject-matter tests, such as the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence. They can prepare for such exams however they like, in universities or elsewhere. As with children, let's stop endlessly forgiving, compensating and remediating teachers. Let's do it right the first time. Until we do, the stealth curriculum may swamp the one we think our schools are teaching-and our teachers will remain vulnerable to manipulation by people and organizations who do not place America's best interests at the top of their priorities.  *   *   * 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 

---

........