________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT March 27, 2006 - Vol. 6, No. 13 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... SENATE VOTES TO KEEP PAYING FOR EARLY ED After several delays, the full Senate finally voted on an early education bill last week. On Thursday, March 23, the Senate took up S.314, the bill that instructs the Commissioner of Education and others to "study" and propose models for public early education in Vermont.  S.314 is a compromise bill that keeps the State Board of Education from either restricting or expanding publicly-funded preK in the state while the legislature refrains from actually passing a preK bill. In other words, current drawdown of Education Funds for universal publicly-funded preK continues while the legislature decides what kind of preschool bill they want. The real action was in the amendments. First up was a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Sens. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland) and Robert Starr (D-Essex/Orleans). This amendment would have placed a moratorium on any NEW public preK programs while the issue was being studied. Not surprisingly, the amendment went down to defeat. To the disappointment of followers of this issue, no roll call vote was requested. However, several sources tell the VER that the following Senators were definite votes for the moratorium (that is, for restraining the drawdown of Education Funds): Senators Coppenrath (R-Caledonia), Mullin (R-Rutland), Maynard (R-Rutland), Shepard (R-Bennington), and Wilton (R-Rutland). Not present for the vote were Senators Starr (D-Essex/Orleans), Condos (D-Chittenden), and Flanagan (D-Chittenden). Because it was a voice vote, it's possible other senators voted for the moratorium as well. The VER will happily print those senators' names if they contact us with the information. PRIVATE PROVIDERS GET AN OLIVE BRANCH The next amendment to be offered to S.314 came from Sen. Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland). This amendment directs school districts to "contract with qualified....providers" in their districts before starting a program at the public school itself. However, there are a few loopholes -- if the public school districts determine that using private providers would not be efficient or effective, the public districts have the green light to start their own programs. This amendment passed unanimously by the 27 senators in the room, a victory for those who've argued vigorously for the protection of these small businesses. The big question: if the full Senate found it so easy to support this amendment, why couldn't Senators James Condos (D-Chittenden) and Donald Collins (D-Franklin) bring themselves to support similar proposals in Senate Education? What was their problem -- the constant presence of the Vermont NEA? S.314 itself was up for a vote after this amendment and it passed with four no votes. Those were: Sen. Coppenrath (R-Caledonia), Maynard (R-Rutland), Shepard (R-Bennington) and Wilton (R-Rutland).  WHAT'S NEXT: S.314 heads to the House where this week the House Education Committee will hear from Commissioner of Education Richard Cate and State Board of Education Chairman Tom James. James was instrumental in crafting the "compromise" that calls for the continued study of this issue while taxpayers get to continue paying the bill for universal preschool. Lobbying has already begun. In the lobbying for S.314, the Child Care Fund of Vermont suggested that senators would be hearing "a lot of nonsense about how radical" it is to increase funding for early care and education "from groups that have recently joined the political scene in Vermont." However, Vermonters for Better Education has been around since 1999 and the Ethan Allen Institute for much longer. Both groups have opposed universal early education efforts. On the scene for a shorter period of time is Freedomworks, another opponent of universal preschool. Its materials are not "nonsense," however, and its relative youth in the Vermont advocacy landscape has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of its message. To contact members of the House Education Committee with your thoughts on early education, you can email the following members: Email formula is: first initial last name@leg.state.vt.us (For example, Rep. George Cross's email is Gcross@leg.state.vt.us) Representative George Cross of Winooski (D), Chair Representative Kathy LaVoie of Swanton (R), Vice-Chair Representative Denise Barnard of Richmond (D) Representative Gregory Clark of Vergennes (R) Representative Kevin Endres of Milton (R) Representative Tim Jerman of Essex (D) Representative Duncan Kilmartin of Newport City (R) Representative Judith Livingston of Manchester (R) Representative Rosemary McLaughlin of Royalton (D) Representative Anne Mook of Bennington (D) Representative David Potter of Clarendon (D)  STATE TEST RESULTS RELEASED The Vermont Department of Education released test results last week from the New England Common Assessment Program exams, administered to third through eighth graders in fall 2005. The NECAP exams are the result of a collaboration with Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Vermont and are designed to test how well students master the state's own standards. The NECAP will replace the New Standards Reference Exam (NSRE) previously administered by the state. Nearly 70 percent of Vermont students tested were "proficient or higher" in reading. In math, 63 percent were "proficient or higher," and in writing, 53 percent were "proficient or higher." Girls outperform boys in reading and writing while scoring virtually equally in math. Less than 50 percent of low-income students scored at the "proficient or higher" level in all three subject areas.  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... FROM....The Alliance for School Choice On the web at: http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org LAWSUIT FILED DEMANDING SCHOOL CHOICE UNDER NCLB In a major legal development that could test the vitality of the No Child Left Behind Act and impact educational opportunities for children in large urban districts across the nation, the Alliance for School Choice joined the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) in a legal filing. The action demands that the Los Angeles and Compton Unified School Districts immediately provide and publicize public school transfer options for children in failing schools as required by the law. The Alliance also called upon U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to cut off applicable federal funds to the districts until they comply with the law or make other suitable educational opportunities available to children in failing schools. "The No Child Left Behind Act isn't worth the paper it's written on so long as children are forced to remain in failing schools," declared Clint Bolick, president of the Phoenix-based Alliance for School Choice, the nation's leading advocacy group for school choice programs for disadvantaged schoolchildren. "NCLB shined a spotlight on what we already knew exists in our community; now it's time for our children to know that their parents aren't leaving them behind," said Star Parker, president of CURE. "If anyone needs the opportunity to improve the educational options for their kids, it's the most vulnerable members of our society." NCLBA requires that school districts offer to children in schools that have failed to make "adequate yearly progress" for two years under state standards the option to transfer to better-performing public schools within the district. Lack of capacity is not a basis to fail to provide transfer opportunities under the law. A 2004 report by the General Accounting Office found that more than 3 million schoolchildren -- overwhelmingly low-income and minority children -- were entitled to transfer, but only 1 percent of those eligible actually transferred. The complaints filed against the school districts charge that of at least 250,000 schoolchildren eligible for transfer in Los Angeles, only 527 (0.2 percent) received transfers to better-performing schools; while in Compton, zero students have received transfers despite appalling educational conditions. The complaints charge that the districts have failed adequately to make information available to parents or to provide sufficient options. Los Angeles has by far the nation's highest number of students in failing schools who are eligible to transfer. Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa has called for mayoral takeover of the school district, declaring that to serve the students it is necessary to "take on the powerful and entrenched interests" and "shake up the system." Compton, meanwhile, was already under state control, which did not significantly improve educational conditions. "I don't think it's fair that the school is failing the parent and the child," said Linda Braxton, speaking of her 13-year-old son Jamal, who she would like to transfer out of a Compton high school. "The Compton system failed him, period." "The conditions in Los Angeles and Compton are the tip of a national iceberg," Bolick stated. "The problem is that the number of children in failing schools vastly exceeds the number of available slots in better-performing public schools. Public schools alone cannot solve the crisis of inner-city education." Because NCLBA does not provide a private right of action, the parents and their organizational partners must file complaints in the first instance with the school districts, demanding compliance. That is what they did today, in a pair of complaints prepared by Robert Boldt, partner in the Los Angeles office of Kirkland & Ellis, but Secretary Spellings has authority to take action to cut off certain federal funds to the districts until they comply. In January, the Bush Administration proposed a $100 million demonstration project to add private school options to NCLBA for children in "restructuring" schools -- that is, schools that have been failing for at least six consecutive years. More than 1,000 schools across the nation are in that category. Bolick said that similar actions could be filed in almost every large district in the United States. "Millions of children are being left behind in failing schools," Bolick declared. "They deserve immediate access to better educational opportunities, to which federal law clearly entitles them."  *   *   * FROM....The Fordham Foundation On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net TEST MESS by Chester Finn The College Board, the Educational Testing Service, Pearson Educational Measurement, and the rest of them should be ashamed of--and held accountable for--the recent spate of screw-ups in SAT scoring, as well as the less-visible but recurrent delays and glitches in state test scoring and reporting. (One wonders how much of this has never been reported.) They are big, rich organizations that are as culpable for flaws in their products as Guidant is when its pacemakers kill people, or Ford was when its Pintos were catching fire. These education behemoths can afford to solve these problems, and they should be shown no mercy until they do. Testing will never be error-free, but, as with any other high-stakes process that we depend on--for the cleanliness of our food, the efficacy of our drugs, the safety of our airplanes, the purity of our water, the fire-resistance of our toddlers' pajamas, the veracity of corporate stock offerings, the integrity of bank accounts--it's got to be mighty damn close to perfect; close enough that we can trust it. And if government is going to deploy tests as part of its public policies, which is happening all over the land, the more so thanks to NCLB, government has a responsibility to ensure that they work as intended and are vulnerable to no more than the rarest of glitches. There are umpteen ways of doing this, and they all require quality control measures that inevitably cost money. Conceivably, the testing industry can police itself, particularly if government requires properly "policed" tests before it accepts their results. Self-policing is always preferable to the heavy hand of government bureaucracy, but it doesn't always work. And when it doesn't, government must take a more direct role, creating the testing equivalent of an FDA or SEC. That's costly and intrusive, yes, but if Washington can send meat inspectors into virtually every slaughterhouse in the land, it can send test inspectors into state and local accountability systems and college entrance-test groups. (Tom Toch's recent report has some good ideas on this front worth considering.) "Experts" have a role to play here, too. They spend gobs of time and energy on esoteric testing issues such as reliability, alignment, comparability, and validity. They sometimes attend to test security (how to minimize cheating and fraud). But in my experience, they pay scant heed to whether the scores are accurate. They should. Test scores need auditing--and generally accepted rules by which to audit them--just as much as corporate books and school expenditures. Of course, the testing companies should already be doing this, checking and double-checking, submitting to independent reviews and audits, spot-checking individual score sheets, running them through twice (and through different machines), and insisting that human beings eyeball them for defects and peculiarities, just as egg inspectors and underwear-wrappers do. I'm sure some of that already goes on. But obviously, there isn't enough. Testing firms are out to make a buck, too. Yes, even those that fly the "non-profit" flag need to accumulate surpluses to finance R & D and expansion, and to make up for deficits in other parts of their operations. They are all out to hold down costs, too, not least because the competitive bidding process that underlies much of their work rewards those who charge the least. (That's something else state and federal officials need to attend to.) In the world of college entrance testing, charging too much means some kids may not even be able to apply--or cannot afford the second and third rounds of re-testing that might boost their prospects of getting into Brown or CalTech. Lack of competition in the testing industry makes all this worse. College applicants have at most two tests (and test suppliers) to choose between. States developing NCLB tests or high-school exit exams can turn to only a few firms. Near-monopoly, combined with penurious customers, combined with little transparency and less oversight, is a wicked blend. Drink enough of it, and sooner or later you're bound to trip and fall. It doesn't help that the testing firms won't own up to their shortcomings. They always insist that they're on top of the problem--if they even acknowledge one--but then the problem recurs. And they make absurd excuses. In this latest round, the cake was taken by the corporate spokesman who said rainy weather had caused test papers to swell, thus throwing off the test-scanning machines and leading to lower scores. (Does dry weather cause scores to rise?) This problem needs solving, and fast. Unsolved, it jeopardizes the entire regimen that we know as standards-based reform and results-based accountability. You can already see the threat. The anti-testing crowd is having a field day, saying, "I told you so. This is what happens when you put too much faith in tests, you wreck kids' lives for spurious reasons, you can't even trust the blasted things to be scored correctly--even if they did measure anything important, which they don't." Yes, I paraphrase. But you get the point. The testing baby could be discarded along with the soiled bathwater that a few careless firms have allowed to accumulate--then excused away or belittled. I can hear the politicians scribbling bills, amendments, and stump speeches. Shame on them, too. Shame on the greedy, smug, secretive firms. Shame on their customers. Shame on the experts. And shame on the government.  *   *   * 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

---

........