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
May 02, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 18
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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 BILL: ACTION AHEAD
The Senate Education Committee is moving into a critical stage with S.132, the early education bill, this week. On Thursday, the committee will begin "mark up," which usually precedes action toward a vote.
Vermonters for Better Education, the publisher of this newsletter, does not believe S.132 is a good bill in its current form. In essence, S.132 is last session's S.166 and this year's "early education rules" (that the Vermont Department of Education tried unsuccessfully to implement earlier this year).
The bill would allow schools to use an ADM calculation and draw down Education Funds for universal preschool. This practice is already taking place in some communities, with the encouragement and approval of the Vermont Department of Education. S.132, however, would codify this process.
S.132 contains provisions whereby private childcare/early education providers can enter into contracts with local school districts, but this is done at the discretion of the local district, not at the direction of the parents.
VBE's concerns fall into the following categories:
1. Universal publicly-funded preschool means the poor will sometimes be subsidizing the rich: Current statute only talks about publicly-funded preschool in terms of "at risk" students -- low-income students or those for whom English is a second language. S.132 (and the current practice of using ADM calculations to fund public preschool) does not make that distinction and would use Vermont taxpayers' money to pay for a service that some parents can afford to pay for on their own.
The state subsidizes the K-12 education of rich and poor alike, but that is because the state mandates that children in that age group be educated. There is no mandate for preschool and thus no obligation to fund it for those who can afford to pay for it on their own.
2. Private providers will be squeezed out of the field: Although several successful public/private preschool collaborations exist in the state, these shouldn't be touted as models but rather as exceptions to the usual method of operation. In other areas of education (K-12) in Vermont, public superintendents are reluctant to form relationships with private providers. The preschool landscape is dominated by private providers. It is unfair to introduce a "free" public provider into this landscape that will lure business away from the private providers, whose taxes will be used to subsidize the public ones.
3. Unrealistic expectations: Supporters of S.132 claim that it will help prepare children for school, making it more likely they will succeed in elementary school and beyond, thus ultimately saving the taxpayers money. However, studies indicate that any gains attained by students in quality preschool programs fade over time. Closing the achievement gap between rich and poor students is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed by ensuring all children are grounded in gateway skills when they leave first grade.
4. Increasing tax burdens: Vermont's K-12 enrollments have been declining for several years. This should lead to lower education costs in some cases, and in a lower tax burden. Instead, S.132 seeks to redirect those dollars into a new part-time universal preschool program. But if this program does not show the results its supporters claim it will lead to, part-time could grow to full-time and preschool education costs would increase as well, following the model of the current K-12 system. These rising costs and subsequent tax burdens make it more difficult for parents who wish to choose to stay home with their children in the preschool years.
WORTH REPEATING: USEFUL INFORMATION
GENERAL LEGISLATURE PHONE NUMBER: 1-800-322-5616 Fax: 802 828 2424
For full legislative directory (including home addresses and phone numbers) go to: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/legdir2.htmSENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Senator Don Collins (D-Franklin), chairman: dcollins@leg.state.vt.us
Senator William Doyle (R-Washington), vice-chairman: wdoyle@leg.state.vt.us
Sen. Jim Condos (D-Chittenden): jcondos@leg.state.vt.us
Sen. Robert Starr (D-Essex-Orleans)
Sen. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland): wwilton@leg.state.vt.usHOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Rep. George Cross (D-Winooski), chairman: gcross@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Kathy LaVoie (R-Swanton), vice-chair: klavoie@leg.state.vt.us or klavoie@together.net
Rep. Dense Barnard (D-Richmond): Dbarnard@leg.state.vt.us or dbbcuts@aol.com
Rep. Gregory S. Clark (R-Vergennes): gsclark@adelphia.net
Rep. Kevin J. Endres (R-Milton): kendres@leg.state.vt.us or Kendresult@msn.com
Rep. Tim Jerman (D-Essex): Tjerman@leg.state.vt.us or vrunner54@aol.com
Rep. Duncan Kilmartin (R-Newport City): dkilmartin@leg.state.vt.us or rexkilvt@together.net
Rep. Judith Livingston (R-Manchester): jlivingston@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Rosemary McLaughlin (D-Royalton): rmclaughlin@leg.state.vt.us or rozo@valley.net
Rep. Anne Mook (D-Bennington): Amook@leg.state.vt.us or annemook@hotmail.com
Rep. Dave Potter (D-Clarendon): Dpotter@leg.state.vt.us
GET ON THE FREEDOMWORKS MAILING LIST
FreedomWorks-Vermont, a new organization that shares VBE's concerns about S.132, would like to build an email list. Co-founded by staunch school-choice advocate Jack Kemp, FreedomWorks is a 501c4 grassroots organization dedicated to fighting for greater economic opportunity and less government intrusion. The Vermont chapter of FreedomWorks is organizing and mobilizing throughout the state. To learn more about FreedomWorks-Vermont, or to become a member, visit http://www.freedomworks.org, http://www.freedomworks.org/processor/signup.php, or contact State Director, Rob Roper at rroper@freedomworks.org, or 802-999-8145.
NINETY REPS SUPPORT NEA LAWSUIT
This week in the House Education Committee, VT-NEA's Joel Cook is on the schedule to discuss Joint Resolution 37 in support of the NEA lawsuit claiming the No Child Left Behind Act is an unfunded mandate. Ninety representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of JRH37 and the overwhelming majority are Democrats (with a few Progressives). But here are the handful of Republicans who also let their names be put on this resolution: Rep. Robert Helm, Rep. Leigh Larocque, Rep. Doran Metzger, Rep. Francis McFaun, and Rep. Kathrine Niquette.
If the Vermont House endorses supporting this lawsuit, they might be showing more faith in its arguments than the national NEA has. To refresh readers' memory, we are reprinting a piece about this lawsuit that originally appeared in the Education Intelligence Agency's weekly Communique. The EIA is a teachers union watchdog, and this article indicates that the national NEA had qualms about their legal position:
The Education Intelligence Agency (an EIA exclusive):
Does NEA Believe Its Own NCLB Legal Argument? The National Education Association filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education last week, claiming the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is an unfunded federal mandate. Nine NEA state affiliates and one local affiliate joined the suit, along with nine school districts in three states. One of the attorneys who filed the suit, and who is undoubtedly its primary author, is NEA General Counsel Robert H. Chanin.
Though the complaint makes many claims, it hinges on one phrase in the law that releases states and school districts from any obligation "to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act." The lawsuit claims that by failing to provide "sufficient federal funds" to pay for its provisions, "the Secretary of Education is violating the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution."
So far, the arguments have fallen along predictable lines. The Department of Education attacked both ends of the union lawsuit by asserting that NCLB is neither a mandate nor insufficiently funded. NEA is taking an unusual stance for a left-of-center labor organization. "The law says that you don't have to do anything it requires unless you receive the federal money to do it," Chanin told the New York Times. "There's a promise in the law, and it is unambiguous."
But EIA has evidence of some considerable ambiguity in NEA's own argument.
On May 7, 2003, the NEA Office of General Counsel sent a "confidential-attorney/client privileged" memo to a large group of state affiliate officers and employees. The memo concerned the NCLB provision regarding the notification of parents whose teachers did not meet the law's definition of "highly qualified."
As EIA reported in its December 8, 2003 communiqué, Chanin advised the union not to pursue litigation on that issue, and the bulk of the memo provides NEA state affiliates advice about the best way to comply with the law. What makes the memo relevant to last week's lawsuit is the reason Chanin cited for not pursuing litigation.
"There are two conceptual possibilities for a challenge based on federal law," the 2003 memo reads. "One is that the parental notice requirement violates a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, denies equal protection, or runs afoul of some other provision in the United States Constitution. We find no such violation.
"The other basis for a possible federal law challenge is that there is no constitutional provision that gives Congress the authority to impose this type of requirement on states - and that might be an avenue worth exploring if that was what Congress has done. In point of fact, however, neither the parental notice requirement - nor, indeed, any of the other requirements in NCLB - are 'imposed' on the states in a legal sense.
NCLB has been enacted on the basis of Congress' Spending Power, and states can avoid this and other statutory requirements simply by declining to accept federal Title I funds. If the states decide to accept such funds, however, then they must also accept the conditions that Congress has attached to them. To be sure, a legal argument can be made that this choice is not really 'voluntary' - states have no option but to comply inasmuch as they cannot adequately fund public education without the federal contribution - but the courts uniformly have rejected such an argument in the education context, as well as in connection with other federal aid programs."
Chanin then helpfully goes on to cite the many cases to support this interpretation: Jim C. v. United States ("Congress can condition the receipt of all federal funds on state's promise not to discriminate against disabled persons"); Kansas v. United States ("threatened loss of $130 million in federal financial support for state welfare program for failure to adopt changes in welfare program as mandated by Congress held not 'coercive'"); Nevada v. Skinner ("no coercion where potential loss of federal funds represented approximately 95% of state highway funds"); Koslow v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("threatened loss of all federal financial support to the state Department of Corrections is not coercive... it is a free and deliberate choice by the Commonwealth"); California v. United States ("conditioning state's receipt of Medicaid funds on state's agreement to provide emergency medical services to illegal aliens does not make the condition involuntary"); Virginia v. Browner ("no coercion where state would lose portion of federal highway funds for failing to comply with requirements of Clean Air Act"); and Oklahoma v. Schweiker ("no coercion where state would lose all federal Medicaid funds for failing to follow certain requirements in Social Security Act.")
"In sum," the memo says, "we see no way for a school district to avoid complying with the parental notice requirement," but adds in a footnote, "except, of course, by rejecting NCLB funding. But the parental notice requirement hardly seems sufficient to trigger such drastic action."
NEA President Reg Weaver told the media, "The principle of the law is simple; if you regulate, you have to pay." But the memo and all those court cases illustrate the obvious fact that federal funds are a two-way obligation. If you want the federal bucks, you have to play by the federal rules.
The American Federation of Teachers quietly noted the NEA lawsuit, stating the AFT had "previously weighed the legal option" but "chose instead to pursue legislative efforts to secure more funding." Perhaps AFT was taken aback by the NEA argument on pp. 50-51 of the lawsuit that the NCLB teacher qualification requirement was costing states money because it was driving up teacher salaries.
Following up the massive publicity surrounding the lawsuit, NEA is still hoping to get a state government to sign on.
* * *
FROM ELSEWHERE...FROM....THE FORDHAM FOUNDATION
On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.netLESSONS FROM SAN DIEGO
In 1998, San Diego City Schools launched one of the nation's most ambitious efforts at urban school reform. Superintendent Alan Bersin, former U.S. District Attorney for Southern California and President Clinton's "border czar," sought to reinvent the teaching and organization of the nation's eighth largest school district. In June, Bersin's stormy tenure will draw to a close. He departs as the longest-serving of the nation's big-city superintendents.
When first hired, Bersin named Tony Alvarado, former superintendent of District #2 in New York City, to serve as head of San Diego's instructional and curricular program. They moved aggressively to promote a strategy of coherent, uniform instruction drawn from Alvarado's work in Gotham. That agenda sparked sharp conflict with the San Diego Education Association, reflected in a persistent 3-2 split on the school board.
Bersin's administration enjoyed some visible successes. Between 1999 and 2004, the percentage of San Diego elementary schools scoring at the top rung of the statewide Academic Performance Index increased by more than a third, the number of schools in the bottom category fell from 13 to one, and the racial achievement gap narrowed. However, more disappointingly, middle school and high school achievement stubbornly failed to improve and some observers questioned the rigor of the district's curriculum, Alvarado's approach to teaching, and Bersin's handling of the union.
Bersin's departure provides an opportunity to ask what we have learned from his highly visible and often contentious tenure. To explore that question, and with the district's full cooperation, last year I assembled a team of analysts to examine the San Diego reform push. For me, five key lessons emerged from their appraisal.
First, the centralized, "managed instruction" model of improvement depends critically on the presence of a personnel and managerial infrastructure and on quality curricula. Alvarado gave unstinting attention to his centerpiece "Institute for Learning" training program for principals and faculty, and to building a corps of "peer coaches" to assist teachers. But his single-minded focus on these activities resulted in a lack of attention to infrastructure and curricula. As a result, the coaches, the Institute, and attempts to assign faculty where needed most ran afoul of the collective bargaining agreement's provisions on professional development, staffing, and teacher transfers. A balky human resources operation reliant on outdated technology inhibited district efforts to speed up hiring or promote more flexible staffing.
As for curriculum, despite seven years of diligent work developing a carefully calibrated professional development model for literacy, by 2004 the district still had not promulgated a coherent curriculum for reading and English. Consequently, while teachers were using the prescribed methods, there was too little attention to the quality of content. Some critics believe that the absence of a rigorous, clear curriculum helps to explain the district's apparent successes in elementary reading and accompanying failure to produce similar results in the more content-centered middle school and high school grades.
Second, Bersin strengthened his hand in pursuing reform by embracing statewide accountability (and later NCLB) metrics. He welcomed the "imposition" of the California Academic Performance Index, using it to identify troubled schools and target professional development and resources. However, Bersin's reforms on this front never reached their full potential. Moves to transfer or remove staff were stifled by work rules, while a 2002 fiscal crisis sapped funding intended for low-performing schools. The San Diego effort on this front is less a "success" than an example of what it will take to develop a focused strategy for improving chronically troubled schools.
Third, San Diego shows how dramatic efforts to improve high schools may conflict with other popular reform strategies. In 2004, when the district adopted a high-school reform model that featured a "portfolio" of smaller, more personal schools, it created tensions with the district's six-year-old emphasis on centralized, managed instruction. Allowing faculty to modify curricula to fit the mission of "specialized" high schools and giving them a voice in curricular choices, and the resulting inability to standardize content, means that mentor-coaches encounter math, English, or science teachers in a dozen small schools who may teach a dozen different curricula in a dozen ways. Coaches could mentor all of these teachers on pedagogical technique yet encounter great difficulty applying uniform, consistent guidance on instruction or content.
Fourth, relentless political leadership is part and parcel of being an effective district leader. Some thoughtful observers have asked if Bersin's style was unduly confrontational. What such critiques tend to downplay is that an effort to reimagine radically the way a district does business is bound to spark conflict. One could argue that Bersin would have been more apt to forge a cooperative relationship with the local teachers' union had he proceeded more slowly. But even in his unusually extended seven-year term, Bersin didn't accomplish all he had hoped. Moreover, his approach threw a spotlight on board votes and helped him hold together his 3-2 bloc for nearly seven years. So, we should be skeptical of suggestions that he could have fared much better merely by being kinder and gentler.
Finally, perhaps the most important lesson from San Diego is how limited the prospects are for radical improvement in urban public education absent structural change to personnel systems, technology, accountability, leadership, and compensation. For all their sweat and struggle, Bersin & Co. found their efforts to build the workforce they wanted stymied by statute and contract language. An outdated information system meant the district had to try to build on the fly the tools it needed to enable serious improvements to school accountability, human resource management, and budgeting. Bersin began his tenure with multiple advantages, including dazzling local and national contacts, personal charisma, a facile mind, polished negotiating skills, impeccable public service credentials, and a deft fundraising touch. If the legacy of his seven-year run is in doubt, the San Diego experience illustrates, above all, that even the boldest attempts to overhaul urban schooling are today undermined by the same institutional and organizational failings that they are intended to address.
Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the editor of Urban School Reform: Lessons from San Diego, published in April by Harvard Education Press.
* * *
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
..
..
..
..