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
August 23, 2004 Vol. 4, No. 29
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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.comSURPRISE, SURPRISE: VERMONT NEA RECOMMENDS CLAVELLE FOR GOVERNOR
The Vermont NEA's September newsletter carries the not-surprising news that the teachers union is recommending Democrat/Progressive Peter Clavelle for Governor and either Progressive Steve Hingtgen or Democrat Cheryl Rivers for Lieutenant Governor. Rivers must win a primary against fellow Democrat Jan Backus, however, before making it to the November ballot.
According to the union's newsletter, Clavelle was chosen for a recommendation because he has a "proven record of support for public schools and working people. He vows to protect local communities from the damage excessive school choice would do."
The union chose Hingtgen for a recommendation for Lt. Governor because he "values the role of public schools in our democracy and understands the need to fund them sufficiently." Rivers was selected because she "is a determined and accomplished advocate for education and worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Vermont-NEA for two decades."
SPEAKING OF CANDIDATES...
There's still no mention of education on the issues page of Governor Jim Douglas's web site, but Lt. Governor Brian Dubie lists "excellent education" as one of several important issues on his. However, there didn't appear to be any link to a campaign platform on this topic up yet.
Democrat Cheryl Rivers, however, does talk about education on her campaign web site and it's no surprise why she received the VT-NEA's endorsement for Lt. Governor. Here's what Rivers says about her education priorities:
"Strong cradle to grave educational opportunities are the best antidote to the off shoring of jobs. Public schools are the centers of our communities. Yet many of our community schools are threatened by unsustainable cost increases for health care, skyrocketing special education costs, and ill conceived proposals for unfettered school choice.
"Early childhood education is the best educational cost containment strategy. Research has clearly demonstrated that early childhood education reduces special education costs. Yet both our Federal and State leaders embrace tax cuts for the wealthy over investment in our children. This is not the Vermont way.
"We can make the choice to keep and improve our community schools. We need state leadership that will expose the disaster and sham of the No Child Left Behind Act.
"We must not go back on our commitment to public education. Investing in early education and higher education is the best long term economic development strategy, and it's the only way out of poverty for many of our people."
No mention of education appears on either Jan Backus's or Steve Hingtgen's campaign web sites.
CHARTER SCHOOL NEWS DISTORTED?
Last week, the New York Times ran an article about education data showing charter school students were not scoring as well as their counterparts in public schools. The article has been roundly criticized because it was generated by a report by the American Federation of Teachers, a union which opposes school choice in general.
The news provided the impetus for school choice opponents to trot out their usual arguments against charter schools. Among those opponents were the editorialists at the Rutland Herald who opined that charter schools represent an abandonment of public schools and what we really need to do to improve education is to spend more money.
The editor of this newsletter has penned a response to the Herald editorial, sent in to the newspaper today. It is as follows:
Dear Editor:Despite the fact that education spending (adjusted for inflation and enrollment) has risen nearly 20 percent in the last five years, a recent analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scores shows no link between spending and performance. In an editorial on this topic, the Wall Street Journal asked a good question - "Is there any other part of American life that would receive tens of billions of more dollars if it kept showing no improvement in performance?"
Yet the Rutland Herald continues to believe that we dodge our public responsibility if we don't rubber stamp every increase in education spending. Vermont already spends nearly one billion dollars on education. For that amount - roughly $10,000 per pupil - we produce the following results: around 60 percent of fourth and eighth graders are not considered "proficient" on NAEP tests of core subjects.
Don't get me wrong - money is important. But sometimes throwing more money at a problem isn't taking responsibility, it's shirking it, especially when more thoughtful solutions are called for.
One of those solutions is opening the door to more school choice, including charter schools. But the Rutland Herald opposes that idea. To bolster their view, the Herald referenced a recent news report from the New York Times about a study that indicated charter schools were not performing as well as public ones. Nowhere in the editorial does the Herald mention the fact, however, that the study of charter school data was generated by a special interest group opposed to school choice -- the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the NEA's sister union.
Of the many easy refutations of the AFT-generated New York Times article, I think U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige's is the most succinct and on-point. I reproduce it below and hope you will share it with your readers:
"The New York Times' front-page 'analysis' of charter schools used faulty methodology to come up with a flawed conclusion. In other words, it was wrong.
"The Times made no distinction between students falling behind and students climbing out of the hole in which they found themselves. The Times grudgingly conceded that 'tracking students over time might present findings more favorable' to charter schools--but that point was buried at the end of the story.
"Another point: it is wrong to think of charter schools as a monolith. There are schools for dropouts, schools for students who've been expelled, schools serving the most economically disadvantaged families. Charters are as diverse as the children they educate. In fact, according to the authors of the data the Times cites, differences between charter and regular public schools in achievement test scores vanish when examined by race or ethnicity. It is virtually impossible to come up with a statistically significant result otherwise.
"The purpose of charter schools is to provide an alternative to parents and students who have been poorly served by their previous schools. Poor instruction, unsafe conditions, a lack of proper attention--these are all factors in a parent's decision to apply to a charter school. The thousands of names on waiting lists to attend charter schools attest to the need for these vital educational options."
To Secretary Paige's comments, I would add these - charter schools are not perfect. To the contrary, it is certainly possible for them to fail in their mission. The Herald rightly cited some examples of those failures.
However, when these schools do fail, their charters can be rescinded and their doors closed. When public schools fail in their mission, however, they stay open, suffering few or no consequences. In fact, we often just give them more money, a policy the Herald seems to support.
Sincerely,
Libby Sternberg
Executive Director
Vermonters for Better Education
BAD NEWS FROM FLORIDA
A Florida Court of Appeals ruled last week that the state's voucher program violates Florida's own constitution, placing another roadblock in the path of school choice programs that have been up and operating successfully. Below is the press release from the Institute for Justice (the public interest law firm involved in the case) describing the ruling:
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-1300 http://www.IJ.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 16, 2004Florida Court of Appeals Strikes Down School Choice Program in 2-1 Decision
Washington, D.C. - With one judge dissenting, a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeals today affirmed a trial judge's decision finding that Florida's Opportunity Scholarship program violates the "no aid to religion" provision of the state constitution. The Opportunity Scholarship program enables parents to remove their children from failing public schools and send them to higher-performing public schools or to attend private schools of their choice, including religious schools.
Recognizing that the issue presented by the case is one of first impression involving an issue of great public importance, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court meaning that the Court will hear the case. Because the trial court's August 2002 decision was automatically stayed on appeal, the Opportunity Scholarship program has not been affected by the court rulings.
The question for the Florida Supreme Court will be whether a neutral scholarship program that allows parents to send their children to private schools of their choice violates the state constitution's prohibition against providing aid to religious organizations. As Judge Ricky Polston noted in his dissent, the answer could have a tremendous impact on a whole array of state aid programs--from Medicaid to subsidized child care to college scholarships--that have historically permitted religious institutions to participate on equal footing with non-religious organizations.
There are currently about 640 children receiving Opportunity Scholarships, and hundreds more became eligible after the most recent FCAT scores were released in June identifying additional failing public schools.
The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that represents Pensacola families participating in the Opportunity Scholarship program, vowed to continue the fight before the Florida Supreme Court. "Families across Florida depend on this program as the only means to save their children from chronically failing public schools," said Clark Neily, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice. "This program has provided these families with a vital lifeline to better educational opportunities and a brighter future."
Tracy Richardson, whose daughter Khaliah attends a Montessori school in Pensacola using an Opportunity Scholarship, expressed frustration over today's ruling. "It feels like we're bumping our heads up against a brick wall just to get a decent education for our kids."
"The Institute for Justice will continue this fight for Florida's most-needy school children," said Chip Mellor, IJ's president and general counsel. "School choice is the only reform that will give these kids a good education today, not some empty union promise of an education years down the road."
IT'S NOT TOO LATE...
...To send a DONATION TO VBE! Thank you to those who've responded to our call for help so far. We're on our way to designing a radio ad campaign and we're working on other publications and materials, so extra dollars would help right now. Make your tax-deductible donation check out to: VBE and send to us at 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701. Thanks!
* * *
ELSEWHEREFROM The Education Intelligence Agency COMMUNIQUÉ - August 16, 2004
On the Web at: http://www.eiaonline.comNUMBERS GAME: NEA'S 501(c)(4) - FORMS A 527
EIA has been well in front of the herd when tracking the doings of Communities for Quality Education (CQE), the NEA-created, NEA-operated, NEA-funded 501(c)(4) political advocacy organization. EIA reported the existence of the group (then called America Learns) and the identities of its officers on March 29, 2004. On July 3, EIA revealed its income consisted of $1-per-member contributions from NEA state affiliates, $4 million from NEA's national media fund, and $1.8 million from NEA's political action committee - the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education. This latter contribution has since been disclosed by the Center for Public Integrity and reported by the Associated Press.
Now EIA is in danger of getting lost in the forests of campaign finance.
Three weeks ago, CQE formed its own 527 organization, called the Communities for Quality Education Action Fund. Its initial filing includes only the name of a contact person (Corina Cortez, an NEA manager for state policy and politics) and the organization's treasurer (Robert Bonazzi, member of CQE's board of directors and the executive director of the New Jersey Education Association).
A 527 can accept contributions in any amount from any source and is not overseen by the Federal Elections Commission. Such groups (MoveOn.org and The Media Fund are examples) cannot directly advocate for candidates for federal office, but sometimes the line is extremely thin.
The purpose of such a Byzantine arrangement escapes me, though it may make sense to someone with a detailed knowledge of campaign finance laws. There is no evidence that any funding or decision-making is controlled by anyone other than an NEA officer or employee. Why the need for multiple organizations with interlocking directorates?
I do know, however, that the more distance created between the source of funding and its ultimate expenditure greatly reduces accountability. Teachers send dues money (or even PAC contributions) to their union, which then directs the money to a second organization (CQE), which then directs money to a third organization (CQE Action Fund), which then spends the money... somewhere.
* * *
FROM THE US FREEDOM FOUNDATION
On the Web at: http://www.freedomfoundation.usFOR SCHOOLS MONEY ISN'T THE ANSWER
by David W. Kirkpatrick, Senior Education FellowSome years ago an article by Al Knight in The Denver Post was headlined, "If Money is the Solution, That's the Problem," and it is demonstrably true. Of course money is needed. Contrary to what is often claimed, and too often believed, it has been provided.
The student-teacher ratio is lower than it has ever been. So is class size. More guidance counselors, specialists, teacher aides and the like have been hired. Adjusted for inflation and enrollment, the dollars spent per-pupil are at an all-time high. And yet the continual charge is made that the schools are underfunded and more money will solve all the problems.
It hasn't happened. It won't happen. A prime example is the Kansas City, Missouri school district.
After nine years of litigation, in 1986 a federal judge ordered the school system to be drastically revised. The judge was assured by educational experts that if he followed their recommendations great improvements would result within five years. Trusting them, he ordered greatly increased funding to pay for changes.
Many schools were torn down. Fifty-six "magnet" schools were created. Technology flourished, with one computer for every three pupils at Central High School, which was rebuilt at a cost of $32 million. Nearly a million dollars was budgeted each year to promote the district on television to persuade parents keep their children in, or return them to, schools in the district. This required significant financial support from the state, support that could only be provided by scrimping on what was available for the rest of the state's schools and students.
Adjusted for cost-of-living, more money was spent per pupil than in any of the rest of the nation's 280 largest school districts. The student-teacher ratio of 13-1 was the lowest of any of major school district. By the time the experiment ended in 1997 more than $2 billion additional were spent in the modestly-sized district.
The result? Test scores did not rise. Dropout rates continued high. Enrollment continued its downward trend, from 72,000 in 1970 to 32,000 in 2000. And it would be worse except for the creation of 15 charter schools. While total district and charter school enrollment in 2000 was up about 600 from the year before, the charter schools had 4,354 pupils. This indicates that the district's own student population had declined again.
There was even less student integration than when the process started. There were 20 superintendents in 31 years, nine from 1990 to 2001 alone. There had been a series of court-appointed monitors, and many changes in school board membership.
In May of 2000 the district lost accreditation because it failed to meet even one of the state's eleven performance standards. Then, In May of 2004, a further complication was introduced when a state judge said the system by which the schools were financed was unconstitutional and he ordered Kansas to close them at the end of the school year.
Kansas City may be the worst example of the failure of money but it is by no means the only one. A number of years ago economist Eric Hanushek cited almost 200 studies that indicate more spending on traditional schooling does not translate into improved learning, higher attendance or other desirable goals. Subsequent studies have confirmed these findings.
Of all the professions, (assuming education is a profession), those in education should be the least likely to repeat errors of the past. Those who claim to teach critical thinking and problem solving should be able to think critically and solve at least some of their own problems. Yet, in funding and conducting public schools, they seem incapable of learning. Instead, they tend to be unwilling to even discuss alternatives, much less try or accept them.
Where are the establishment groups that promote open and full debate of any and all educational ideas? Where are the ones that are willing to support trial efforts of any and all alternative programs to see whether they show promise of working better? Where are those primarily concerned with what could benefit students?
It is this inability of its defenders to establish viable programs that threatens the present system, not the reformers.
* * *
SUMMER SCHEDULE
The Vermont Education Report will not be appearing in your email box next Monday because we will be going to a summer schedule - publishing every other week. The next time you'll see the VER is Monday night, September 6 unless breaking news occurs! Please feel free to email us with information or news, however - VTBetterEd@aol.com.
* * *
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
..
..
..
..