________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT February 20, 2006 - Vol. 6, No. 08 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... SPECIAL ALERT: STATE BOARD TO VOTE ON EARLY ED POLICY TUESDAY The State Board of Education will discuss and vote on its draft Early Education Policy at its Tuesday, February 21 meeting. The meeting will be held at the Noble Hall Lounge, Vermont College at Union Institute on College Street in Montpelier. The Early Ed discussion is slated from 9:50 to 11:45 a.m. and the SBOE will take comments from the public. The Ad Hoc committee working on the early ed policy recommendation is poised to recommend that the SBOE support publicly-funded early education only for at-risk children and that private providers be included in any early ed plan. To view the policy recommendation in its entirety, go to the SBOE board packet materials at: http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/html/board/schedule.html#packet If you cannot attend the meeting but would like to weigh in with your comments, email addresses for SBOE board members are:  Tom James, SBOE chair: tomjames1@adelphia.net William Corrow: wbcorrow@aol.com Chris Robbins: Chris.Robbins@EHV-Weidmann.com Ruth Stokes: rstokes123@aol.com Matthew Francis: matthew_francis@cvuhs.org 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 WHY THE STATE BOARD VOTE IS IMPORTANT If the State Board of Education votes to adopt a policy on early education, it will not have the force of law or even of rule. Only the legislature can make laws and the rule-making process is different than a policy recommendation. But the State Board's policy recommendation will have a direct impact on the Vermont Department of Education and send a message to other policy-makers -- especially the legislature. The direct impact, however, is important. The Vermont Department of Education provides guidance to the state's public school system. VDOE staff answer questions, give school districts counsel and even encouragement when appropriate. For a half dozen years, that encouragement has included support for school districts who have ventured into starting "universal" prek programs. (Universal programs are those where public funding supports all children regardless of income levels.) In fact, just last year the VDOE co-sponsored an early education conference that featured CFO Bill Talbott providing a Powerpoint presentation about how schools could access public funding for universal early ed programs and hold their "equalized spending" harmless against declining enrollments. If the State Board adopts a policy, however, that supports public funding only for at-risk children (children from families at 185 percent of the federal poverty level or those with special needs), the VDOE should focus its guidance, counsel and encouragement toward programs that follow the SBOE policy recommendation. An SBOE policy recommendation to target at-risk children for publicly-funded preK does not necessarily mean that money would stop flowing entirely to programs already in existence. It is the VDOE's position that publicly-funded universal preK in Vermont is legal because of a previously-passed SBOE rule (something the publisher of this newsletter and others dispute). But such an SBOE policy recommendation should force VDOE staff to focus their resources -- time and energy, in particular -- on programs that are in line with the SBOE's adopted policy. No more "show me the money" PowerPoint presentations, in other words, from SBOE staff. This is the SBOE's role -- to adopt policies that staff put into action.  AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SBOE Dear Members of the State Board of Education: I would like first to salute the members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Early Education. They were given a difficult task and I know they spent many hours poring through research and correspondence as well as devoting time to meetings where thoughtful discussions took place. I support the general parameters of their recommendation to limit public funding of preschool to disadvantaged ("at risk") children and to ensure that parents of these children are able to choose the preK provider that most suits their needs.  I am not supportive of the "quality" component that seeks to require a licensed teacher for preschool programs. I believe that there are equally effective but far less restrictive methods for ensuring quality in preK programs and I fear that the licensed teacher requirement would have the effect of narrowing the door to certification for these programs, thus resulting in fewer certified programs. As I have followed the preschool debate, one issue troubles me in particular. Supporters of universal preschool often cite studies to bolster their view that money invested in quality preK programs results in savings down the road. Yet the major studies that I have seen and heard cited again and again are of programs no one in Vermont is talking about emulating. Specifically, the Perry preschool project and the North Carolina Abecedarian Project are often used as examples of the benefits of publicly-funding preschool programs. I just listened recently, in fact, to testimony before the Senate Education Committee by an expert who cited the Perry project, among others, to tout the benefits of quality preK programs. The problem, as you may know already, is that these programs involved extensive and expensive interventions -- such as home visitation, one parent staying at home, medical help, dietary supplements, infant childcare, tutoring once the children reached elementary school, and parental counseling, among others. No one is suggesting modeling those programs here in Vermont. Therefore they cannot and should not be used as evidence supporting the public funding of universal preschool. They must be taken off the table completely. In fact, there is little or no evidence to suggest a payback from universal preschool. Most programs studied involve disadvantaged populations. We cannot ask Vermont taxpayers to fund universal preschool programs just because we THINK they'll be beneficial or we HOPE they'll be beneficial. It is unfair and unwise. Limited resources should be focused on programs that conclusively show results and on children who need help the most. As opposition to universal preschool in Vermont has grown, supporters have started using a new argument to bolster their cause -- they warn of the segregating effects of funding only disadvantaged students and tout the beneficial effects of disadvantaged children being mixed in with their more advantaged peers. Let's make this very clear -- no one is suggesting that disadvantaged children be segregated. We are only suggesting that they are the ones who should receive public funding.  The Vermont Department of Education has not done a survey of current privately-funded preschool programs but there are many where thousands of parents do pay for preschooling. In my community alone there is Christ the King preschool, Little Lambs preschool, the Vermont Achievement Center, and numerous others. I'm sure each of you can think of similar lists of private preschools in your own areas. The number and variety of these programs suggest that parents are willing to pay for quality preschooling. Only those who are not CAPABLE of paying should receive our limited resources. Whatever policy you adopt, it will not have the force of law. But it will send a strong message to other policy makers and to the staff under your jurisdiction that Vermont will not recklessly dash down the road to universal preschool without conclusive and compelling evidence that such programs are right for this state and justify access to the public purse. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Libby Sternberg Executive Director Vermonters for Better Education Rutland, Vermont  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... FROM....The Fordham Foundation On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net THE "65 PERCENT SOLUTION" by Chester E. Finn, Jr., president of the Fordham Foundation A well-meaning young business entrepreneur has started a well-meaning organization called "First Class Education," (www.firstclasseducation.org) whose sole mission is to get states to enact laws requiring schools to spend at least 65 percent of their "operating budgets" in the classroom. That straightforward idea appeals to such thoughtful critics as George Will and, now, to such reform-minded states as Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas. Advocates claim that many billions of dollars now spent on various school overheads and low-priority activities would be spent on actual student instruction if this policy were put into place. Well-meaning, to be sure, and consistent with the oft-noted fact that school systems spend vast sums on lower-priority activities than teaching and learning. But, like most formulaic solutions, it's too simple--and apt to retard other important reforms that K-12 education also needs. An example of how it's too simple: School libraries and librarians aren't counted as "classroom" expenditures. Yet field trips are. An example of how it may hold back other valuable reforms: distance-learning offers enormous potential to bring high-quality instruction, and instructional materials, into student's lives, whether in the classroom, at home, or at the local Girls & Boys Club. For some kids, it's the best way. Yet the technology revolution, the capital investments, and the salaries of gifted instructors and curriculum developers on the other side of the nation or planet presumably don't count as expenditures "in the classroom." To shackle a state's or school system's education budget to such a formula may serve to freeze the status quo and deter far more powerful means of educating children. Simple external controls have both the virtues and the shortcomings of simplicity. Remember wage and price controls as means of curbing inflation? It turned out that what had to be done was to solve the underlying economic problems. Same with schooling. WHY NOT THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION TO TEACHER SHORTAGES? State after state and city after city are lamenting their shortages of teachers in general, math and science teachers in particular, and "highly qualified" teachers above all. The Maryland Department of Education reported this month that just 42 percent of Baltimore teachers meet the federal definition of "highly qualified," even as California education analysts predict a shortage of 100,000 teachers in that state over the next decade.  Why, for Pete's sake, are they not pursuing the obvious remedies, namely differential pay, alternative certification, slashed red tape, portable pensions, and all the rest? Such measures were even recommended in Maryland by Governor Ehrlich's 2005 commission, but nobody there has lifted a finger to implement them. Of course, we know why not. Adult vested interests--teacher unions, ed schools, etc.--don't want such reforms, and (as the California Teachers Association showed Governor Schwarzenegger last November) they'll fight hard and spend lavishly to sustain the status quo. In Maryland, Ehrlich is running for re-election and, at least in the education sphere, he's lavishing money on that selfsame status quo and rocking no boats. Pity.  *   *   * 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.   Subscribe Here SubscribeRemove

---

Return to Education Report Index | Return to VBE Index | Vermonters for Better Education Homepage

---

........