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
January 30, 2006 - Vol. 6, No. 05
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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.132, EARLY ED BILL, STILL IN PLAY
The Senate Education Committee will continue to take testimony this week on S.132, the early education bill that uses Education Fund money to pay for preschool for rich and poor alike, thus expanding the public school system by two grades. This bill also could have the effect of decimating Vermont's already fragile private childcare industry when all public schools have the green light to operate childcare programs for free.
The lineup for this week begins on Tuesday when Rep. George Cross (D-Winooski), chair of the House Education Committee, testifies before his Senate colleagues on an "Early Education in Vermont Overview."
What's curious about this bit of scheduling is the fact that Rep. Cross was never all that eager to take up S.132 or its predecessor S.166 in his committee several years ago. Some have speculated that this is because Cross didn't believe any early ed bill was necessary for schools to use ADM formulas to fund their preK programs.
This year, however, Cross might be under considerable pressure to toe the Senate Education Committee line and push for S.132 should it arrive in the House.
ROUNDTABLE TO TESTIFY -- WILL IT BE ON "SPECIFIC LEGISLATION?"
Also on tap in Senate Ed this week are two reps from the Vermont Business Roundtable -- Lisa Ventriss and "Tim Bolt" (it is unclear if this is a typo on the Senate Education schedule -- Tim Volk of the VBR has testified about early ed in the past).
It will be interesting to hear what Ventriss and her colleague have to say. Over a year ago, this newsletter wrote that the Roundtable was a "vigorous supporter of S.166" (S.132's predecessor),only to have Ventriss ask for a correction.
At that time, she wrote that the Roundtable "voted its approval of a statement of principles around early care and education...however, we took no formal position on the legislation..."
Ventriss went on to write that the VBR is a "non-partisan, civic welfare organization that does not engage in lobbying activities. As such, we do not testify in support of specific pieces of legislation."
Whatever the VBR's mission, testifying on a specific bill looks an awful lot like....well, testifying about a specific piece of legislation.
LAST WEEK: CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT S.132
Last Friday, the Committee heard from several private providers who testified against the early ed bill, at least one of whom brought letters of concern from other private providers as well. Committee members also heard from bill opponents Rob Roper of Freedomworks Vermont, and Kevin Blier of Vermont Renewal. Both Roper and Blier testified against S.132 with Roper concentrating on tax implications.
Roper based his testimony on three objections: that expanding public education at this time is unaffordable, that S.132 is "hostile to an overwhelming majority of the 400-plus private childcare providers in Vermont," and that early ed programs in general have not conclusively proven their effectiveness in helping kids.
Roper pointed out that education spending in Vermont has "grown at almost twice the rate of inflation" and property taxes are projected to rise over 10 percent this year and next. This is occurring, however, at the same time that "the average household income" in Vermont has only risen by 3.7 percent. "Expanding a burden that is already out of control," said Roper, "is a reckless policy."
Other states that have gone into the universal preschool business have seen the cost rise well beyond initial projections. Roper used Louisiana as one example. "State funding for (prek) rose from $15 million initially to $51 million in just two years," he told the committee. He also told committee members that "the final price tag for Quebec's day care program is 33 times what was originally projected."
WHEN WILL THEY VOTE?
Sens. Don Collins (D-Franklin) and James Condos (D-Chittenden) still appear to be supportive of the bill, although it is unclear if they will consider altering it to address the concerns of opponents. The major alterations would have to include ironclad provisions protecting private providers and focusing money only on at-risk students.
Sen. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland) has introduced another early ed bill, S.289, that addresses those and other concerns. Wilton's committee colleague, Sen. Robert Starr (D-Essex/Orleans) is one of four co-sponsors. But word is that Sen. Collins, the committee chair, is so dug in on S.132 that he won't even take up S.289.
A committee vote on S.132, however, could come as early as the end of this week or some time next week.
MEANWHILE, OVER AT THE STATE BOARD
The State Board of Education also continues to examine the early education issue with an ad hoc committee devoted to this topic meeting regularly before the full board gathers for its monthly meeting on February 21.
So far, the ad hoc committee appears to be leaning toward recommending a position that parallels Sen. Wilton's bill -- Vermont taxpayers should only be forced to pay for preK for "at risk" children, and private providers must be protected against "free" competitors (public schools) entering their marketplace.
If the board adopts that position, it will go a long way toward correcting what some believe is an error made by a previous state board when it adopted a rule allowing for the drawdown of Education Funds for universal preschool (when only "at risk" preschoolers were mentioned in statute).
The SBOE adopted the universal preK rule five years ago, but did they have the authority to do so? You be the judge. The Vermont Constitution says:
"No money shall be drawn out of the Treasury, unless first appropriated by act of legislation."
No "act of legislation" created the universal preK appropriation. The SBOE could have been overstepping its bounds at the time.
Current SBOE members have been hearing from supporters of universal preschool, however, who are urging board members not to recommend a position that only targets at-risk students.
Their argument includes the following: if at-risk students are the only ones receiving public funding, the programs will become segregated because other parents will not continue paying for what they once received for free.
That argument is based on two premises, neither of which has any basis in known fact: the first premise is that SIGNIFICANT numbers of non-at-risk kids are now being served in public preKs. Some non-at-risk kids are currently being served, but not significant numbers of them -- yet.
The second premise, based on nothing but speculation, is that SIGNIFICANT portions of this already-small group (of non-at-risk students) would drop out of the program if it weren't free.
One could make a stronger argument, though, that public preK programs have a greater chance of attracting a diverse population if they were allowed to charge parents who could afford to pay for the preK services. The public schools would be forced to configure their programs so that they appealed to parents looking for quality preK opportunities. Is there any doubt they could?
SBOE members need to hear from those who support preK money only for at-risk kids with money following the child. Here are names and email addresses for SBOE members:
SBOE Ad hoc early ed committee:
Tom James: tomjames1@adelphia.net
Chris Robbins: Chris.Robbins@EHV-Weidmann.com
Ruth Stokes: rstokes123@aol.com
Matthew Francis: matthew_francis@cvuhs.orgOther SBOE members are:
William Corrow: wbcorrow@aol.com
Linday Caslin: caz1072@yahoo.com
Lisa Cox: Cox@sover.net
Rick Manahan: RMan@together.net
Diane Mueller: Dmueller@okemo.com
Susan Schill: schills@wildblue.net
AND WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO SCHOOL CHOICE?
School choice will be discussed in both Senate and House Education Committees this week but neither conversation is likely to lead to more expansive choice programs.
In House Education, Commissioner of Education Richard Cate will give a report on Act 150's impacts. This school choice law allows handfuls of kids from public high schools to choose another public high that their "home" school has formed a collaborative agreement with. Some schools skirt the law by holding choosing kids captive until the same number of kids choose the home school.
Past annual reports on Act 150 have contained one compelling message: the sky didn't fall, as opponents of school choice claimed would happen once the door was cracked to this policy. Nonetheless, there's always something in the report opponents latch on to in order to block the door to more choice.
Senate Ed will consider S.240 this week which is just a continuation of Act 150 with a few more bells and whistles. S.240 calls for transportation planning -- a surefire way to allow superintendents who were dragging their feet already to dig in their heels entirely.
The State Board of Education, however, constructed a school choice bill that is more expansive and more elegant. Introduced last year, S.141 (H.189 in the House) calls for choice only among public schools but extends it to all grades and sets up a transitional formula for money following the child that allows schools to get used to this new regime.
The State Board's bill, along with a charter school law, could help small schools stay afloat by attracting students from outside their districts.
The big question: Why are Senator Don Collins and Representative George Cross continuing to thumb their nose at the State Board of Education's school choice bill (S.141 or H.189)? Are they so beholden to the Vermont NEA that they can't even give the SBOE's bill consideration? And if they are, is this a wise political move on their parts? With teacher strikes souring many voters on the union's heavy hand, watch for NEA support to be a liability rather than an asset in upcoming elections.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON EARLY ED OR SCHOOL CHOICE -- OR OTHER EDUCATION ISSUES?
If you'd like to contact members of the Senate Education Committee, their email addresses are below. You can also leave a message for them by calling the Statehouse at 1-800-322-5616.
Members of the Senate Education Committee:
-- Senator Don Collins of Franklin District, Chair, dcollins@leg.state.vt.us (supports S.132, the early ed bill)
-- Senator Bill Doyle of Washington District, Vice-Chair wdoyle@leg.state.vt.us (position unknown on S.132)
-- Senator Jim Condos of Chittenden District, jcondos@leg.state.vt.us (supports S.132)
-- Senator Bobby Starr of Essex-Orleans District bstarr@leg.state.vt.us (position unknown on S.132)
-- Senator Wendy Wilton of Rutland District, WWilton@leg.state.vt.us (opposes S.132)You can also consider writing letters to the editor. Here are some newspaper addresses in key senators' districts:
Times Argus
540 N. Main Street
PO Box 707
Barre, VT 05641
802.479.0191
letters@timesargus.comCounty Courier
209 Main Street
Enosburgh Falls 05450
802-933-4375
county.courier@verizon.netSt. Albans Messenger
Daily/5100
St. Albans 05478-2503
802-524-9771
Editor, Emerson Lynn
opinions@samessenger.comBurlington Free Press
College Street
Burlington 05401
802-865-4600
letters@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.comVermont Guardian
Northern Vermont: PO Box 335,
Winooski, VT 05404
Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702,
Brattleboro, VT 05301
802.861.4880
877.231.5382 (toll-free)
info@vermontguardian.comOther Paper
South Burlington 05403
802-864-6670
otherpaper@adelphia.netBusiness People VT
1233 Shelburne Road
South Burlington 05401
802-862-4109
editorial@vermontguides.comSeven Days
29 Church Street
Burlington 05401-4417
802-864-5684
letters@sevendaysvt.comColchester Sun 14 Main Street
Essex Junction 05452-3132
802-878-5282
news@essexreporter.comShelburne News
1929 Shelburne Road
Shelburne 05482-7171
802-985-3091
news@shelburnenews.comVermont Times
Webster Road
Shelburne 05482
802-985-2400
grahamcomm@adelphia.net
editor: Roz Graham 985-2490* * *
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
........