________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT March 06, 2006 - Vol. 6, No. 10 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... EARLY ED: STUDY IT BUT DON'T CHANGE IT S.132, the early education bill, will remain "on the wall" for now after the Senate Education Committee voted last week to direct the commissioner of education and the commissioner of the department of children and families to collaborate on a study of the issue. The vote for the study was 3-2, with Senators Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland) and Robert Starr (D-Essex/Orleans) voting against and Senators Donald Collins (D-Franklin), James Condos (D-Chittenden) and William Doyle (R-Washington) voting in the affirmative. The vote occurred after a tumultuous period of discussion. Several observers described the process as "dysfunctional" as Chair Don Collins tried to ensure that the study committee provision passed, stalling any efforts to focus early ed dollars only on at-risk kids. The study is supposed to develop "a model for conducting a...community needs assessment process," "a model contract" for school districts to use in forming collaboratives with private providers, and a "model for integrating funding from the agency of human services with other appropriate funding." The study committee will report on or before January 30 of next year to the Senate and House Education committees. During the time of the study, however, the "Vermont state board of education shall not adopt, revise, or repeal any rules governing early childhood education services and funding before June 30, 2008." This last provision is curious and questionable. Curious because of its date - June 30. June 30 is the date that the budget language expires. This year that translates into a sunsetting of the last-minute early ed funding language inserted in the budget bill last year. So, does the "June 30, 2008" restriction on SBOE action send the message that early ed funding will once again be inserted in the budget bill with an expiration of 2008 attached? Who knows? Also intriguing about this provision is its legality. Can the legislature tie the hands of the SBOE in this manner or is this a violation of separation of powers? TOM JAMES CONFIRMED Tom James, chairman of the State Board of Education, had his appointment confirmed by the Senate Education Committee on Friday, just one day after the committee passed an early ed study committee bill that was said to have been part of a deal brokered between James and the committee chair, Sen. Don Collins. The confirmation vote was not on the weekly schedule -- the day's activities were originally labeled "TBA." A schedule with the confirmation vote was put up on the day of the vote. Although James has been serving since last year, his appointment had yet to be confirmed. The vote on Friday was unanimous despite contentious questioning of James by Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden) last year when James appeared before the committee. James was the tie-breaking vote when the SBOE considered an early ed policy that would have recommended public spending only on at-risk children. Although James conceded that research only supports such funding (as opposed to funding all students, disadvantaged or not), he voted against the at-risk-only policy, instead offering an "alternative" -- a study of the issue. His alternative was supposedly part of a deal with Sen. Collins -- the SBOE wouldn't act to restrict early ed if the Senate wouldn't act to expand it.  ALSO PASSED: THE GOVERNOR'S PROMISE SCHOLARSHIPS The Senate Education Committee also passed by a 4-1 vote on Friday the Governor's Promise Scholarship plan that provides college scholarships to Vermont students who attend in-state colleges and then agree to remain in the state for several years after graduating. Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden) was the lone dissenter.  WOODSTOCK: "NO" TO UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL At the Woodstock Town Meeting, voters approved a non-binding resolution to "instruct" the governor and legislature to limit education funding to K-12 and at-risk pre-K children only.  FAIR HAVEN TEACHERS WANT OUT OF NEA Some teachers at Fair Haven Union High School have started to organize -- to pull out of the Vermont NEA, the state's teachers union. According to a Rutland Herald article by Brendan McKenna, a group led by social studies teacher Curt Hier wants to break with local and state NEA affiliates and form another union. Hier needed 20 percent of the bargaining unit (about 60 people, according to the story) to sign a petition to force a referendum to "decertify" the union. He managed to get 17 signers -- about five more than necessary. Hier has issues with the local Addison-Rutland union component as well as with the national organization which, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, gives "millions of dollars to liberal causes.' "A lot of us don't want our money going to those causes," Hier said in the Rutland Herald article. "Even if they were giving to my favorite causes, I still wouldn't like it. That should be up to the individual." For the full story, go to: http://www.RutlandHerald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006603030374  *   *   * FROM COMMENTARY... THE RAID ON THE EDUCATION FUND by John McClaughry, Ethan Allen Institute On town meeting day March 7 voters in at least 120 towns will find on their warning the question, "Shall the voters advise our legislative delegation to oppose any use of the State Education Fund for non-education purposes and any reduction of existing State General Fund support to the State Education Fund?" This question, called the Grafton Resolution, was added to town warnings at the request of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. It was prompted by the well-known maxim that, just as Nature abhors a vacuum, a state fund flush with cash attracts raiders. First, a quick tutorial on the Education Fund, created by Act 60 in 1997. The Fund was created to pay the costs of K-12 education for every public school in the state. Its $1.34 billion in revenues (2007, projected) comes from the statewide non-residential property tax ($469 million, 35%), the "local share" homestead property tax ($423 million, 31%), a formula-driven transfer from the General Fund ($294 million, 22%), the proceeds of one third of the 6% sales tax ($113 million, 8%), and miscellaneous sources ($45 million, 4%). Because real estate values have risen sharply over the last four years, the Education Fund is flush with revenues. But the Transportation Fund is short at least $24 million to qualify for federal matching funds. So Gov. Douglas's FY 2007 budget proposes to take $14.3 million from the Education Fund to match transportation grants. It also proposes to take another $3.2 million to shore up the chronically underfunded teachers retirement system. This $17.5 million raid is supposed to be balanced by curbing income sensitivity payments to certain high value property owners. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Hence the Grafton Resolution. It would tell legislators to keep putting the required $294 million from the General Fund into the Education Fund and, most importantly, not raid that Fund to pay for "non education" expenses like transportation and teachers retirement. The Grafton Resolution conveniently ignores the fact that public schools all over the state are increasingly drawing down Education Fund moneys to pay for universal preschool programs -- in effect, adding two more grades to the public school system. This began in 1998, when the State Board of Education decided that it had the power to authorize this fund raid without benefit of legislative action. Last May, in the dark of night and over Gov. Douglas's objection (but not his veto), the legislature made Education Fund raiding for universal preschool legal for the year ending this June 30. Unless the legislature ratifies this again, this fund raid will become illegal again on July 1, and very ripe for a taxpayers lawsuit. Taxpayers have every right to be shocked at the escalating property tax bills for public education. The Grafton resolution against Education Fund raiding is all right so far as it goes. What the taxpayers should demand, however, is a version that reads like this. "We the taxpayers have had it with paying sharply escalating property taxes for public school spending, even as our school age population continues its steady downward trend." "We oppose robbing the Education Fund to pay for retirement and transportation spending. We also oppose the underhanded and even more costly expansion of the public schools by adding preschools for 3- and 4-year olds." "Our public school system is an over regulated, bureaucratically top-heavy monopoly producing disappointing results, even as the people employed by the system seem to be doing very well for themselves." "So listen up: it's time to give parents choices for their children, among a wide variety of education providers - many of them lower cost than the overgrown public schools. It's time for education freedom districts, charter schools, universal tuition tax credits for independent schools, and dual enrollment for college-bound high school seniors." "It's time to let all kinds of schools -- public and independent, nonprofit and for-profit -- compete with high standards and meaningful assessments, so taxpayers, parents and children can choose what gives them their money's worth in pupil achievement." "It's time to contract out many school support services to small business. It's time to peel off lots of people who don't teach, and target spending on classrooms. It's time to put the teachers' union portion of local school budgets on the ballot, tuition pupils out to other schools whenever the union goes on strike, and force the Vermont NEA to make public how much it spends on its political activities." "In short, it's time that legislators, the State Board, the teachers' union and the rest of the educational establishment realize that taxpayers are not going to keep on paying soaring tax bills to feed a government monopoly system that costs far too much, gets feeble results, constantly caves in to union demands, and resists every change that promises efficiency in operation and improvement in outcomes." "We'll keep paying - but not on your terms. On ours. Any questions?" John McClaughry is president of the Ethan Allen Institute.  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... FROM....The Fordham Foundation On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net BASIC INSTINCTS by Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch U.S. students lag behind their peers in other modern nations--and the gap widens dramatically as their grade levels rise. Our high school pupils (and graduates) are miles from where they need to be to assure them and our country a secure future in the highly competitive global economy. Hence, any serious effort at education reform hinges on our setting world-class standards, then candidly tracking performance in relation to those standards. Even when gains are slender and results disappointing, we need the plain truth. Which is why recent attempts by federal and state governments to sugarcoat the performance of students is so alarming. Our most rigorous standards are those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a federally funded testing program that began in 1969. At a time when many states, responding to the accountability prods of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, are embracing low performance norms for their students--and pumping out misleading information about how many youngsters are "proficient" and how many schools are making "adequate yearly progress"--NAEP functions as an indispensable external benchmark. It unblinkingly reported that only 29 percent of eighth grade public school pupils were "proficient" in math and reading in 2005. It also showed starkly that the results reported by many states are far too rosy. Not surprisingly, NAEP's role as honest auditor makes state officials squirm. Since NCLB expects each state to set its own academic norms and choose its own tests, the temptation to dumb them down is irresistible; NAEP is the main antidote. Congress knew that in 2001 when, as part of No Child Left Behind, it required all states to take part in NAEP reading and math tests in grades four and eight. (Previously, state participation was voluntary.) Since 1988, NAEP's standards and policies have been set by the independent, bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). In 1990, that body promulgated three achievement levels for reporting NAEP results. These it labeled "basic," "proficient" and "advanced." "Basic" denoted "partial mastery of knowledge and skills." "Advanced" signified "superior performance beyond grade-level mastery." "Proficient," though, was the key. NAGB termed it "the central level," representing "solid academic performance for each grade tested" and "a consensus that students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter and are well prepared for the next level of schooling." NAGB intended that "proficient" would represent the skills that every student ought to possess--even if many were not there yet. On NAEP tests since 1990, this level of performance has usually been reached by about three kids in 10. Everyone knows that's unsatisfactory. But it's also reality, an accurate gauge of the gap between U.S. pupils' prowess and what they need to match world standards. From the outset, some educators protested that NAGB's "proficient" was too ambitious, but the board stuck to its guns. For the past 15 years, both NAGB and the Department of Education, which manages NAEP, have resisted pressure from politicians and educators to back away from, or dumb down, the "proficient" standard. With NCLB, however, that's begun to change. More voices are demanding that NAEP focus attention on the much-lower "basic" standard. Explains a spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Education: "NAEP's basic is comparable to our proficient." Federal officials should push back, insisting on NAGB's "proficient" as the gold standard. They should continue to highlight--and deplore--any gaps between it and state test results. But the White House and Education Department now crave proof that NCLB is succeeding and seek to accommodate state pleas for "flexibility" and pacify governors threatening to withdraw from NCLB. Hence they, too, are subtly substituting "basic" for "proficient" when they report NAEP results--and downplaying standards altogether in favor of simple up-and-down trend lines. In releasing the 2005 scores, the Education Department for the first time published comparison tables showing state-specific progress only in relation to "basic." And even NAGB members now highlight "basic" rather than "proficient." In October, chairman Darvin M. Winick, a long-time Texas associate of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and President Bush, spoke only of gains at the basic level. His "reporting and dissemination" committee acknowledged that "We're trying to draw attention to basic as an achievement level with some value." Last month, when releasing 2005 NAEP results for 11 big cities, Mr. Winick's statement focused entirely on trend lines, not standards. (He and his colleagues also suggested that students should be compared with others of the same race rather than in relation to standards.) Staffers guiding journalists and other statistical amateurs through these complex data cited "studies" asserting that NAEP's "basic" is closer to states' "proficient" norms--which is certainly true but should be interpreted as proof that NAEP must maintain its high standards, not succumb to states' lesser aspirations. Is No Child Left Behind corrupting NAEP? It's too soon to be sure. But it's clear that, for those in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill whose own reputations hinge on the perceived success of NCLB, NAEP results now carry consequences, just as they do for states. Just how demanding is "proficient" anyway? Here's how NAGB defined it for fourth grade math: "Fourth graders performing at the proficient level should be able to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are reasonable. They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals; be able to solve real-world problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers and geometric shapes appropriately." Is this too much to expect? Hardly. America's great education problem is that for years we settled for "basic skills" rather than true proficiency. The Bush administration does a disservice to the nation if it tells educators and state officials that "basic" is acceptable. You can be sure that our competitors aren't doing any such thing. Chester E. Finn, Jr. is president of the Fordham Foundation and Diane Ravitch is research professor at New York University and a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. This article originally appeared on the op-ed pages of the February 27th Wall Street Journal.  *   *   * 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

---

........