________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT May 16, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 20 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... PUBLIC ENROLLMENTS DOWN BUT PRIVATE ENROLLMENTS UP Enrollment at public schools might be declining but enrollment in home study and independent schools continues to rise. Last week, the VER reported on enrollment numbers released by the Vermont Department of Education that show a shrinking public school enrollment in the state. However, the State Board of Education's FY 06 Budget Recommendations and Annual Report fills in that story with other numbers that show a continuing trend in rising enrollments in independent and home study. According to the SBOE's book (relevant passages can be found at http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pubs/budget_book_06/part_3.pdf), enrollment in approved independent K-12 schools went from 7,950 in FY 04 to 8,100 in FY 05. Similarly, enrollment in recognized independent K-12 schools went from 1,852 in FY 04 to 1,900 in FY 05. ("Approved" schools comply with more comprehensive regulatory monitoring than "recognized" schools and can, if not religiously-affiliated, accept publicly-funded tuition town students.) Home study moved from 2,260 to 2,265 in those years. Because public school enrollments are declining, these numbers represent larger and larger percentages of the entire Vermont student body as the years progress. EARLY ED UPDATE: TESTY TESTIMONY AND RILED PROVIDERS Last week, the Senate Education Committee heard from a few private childcare providers concerning S.132, the early education bill. According to one source, the testimony of a Franklin County provider was greeted with disdain by Sen. Don Collins (D-Franklin), chairman of the committee and himself a Franklin County resident. Perhaps he'll be lucky and the provider won't talk to her neighbors about her experience. The private provider testimony is noteworthy because in the three years this early education bill has been moving forward, private providers have rarely been heard from. Statewide childcare groups, Education Lobby officials, and Vermont Department of Education representatives have all had their say and then some. But private providers haven't been asked for their opinions directly. This is ironic to say the least -- the early ed/childcare marketplace is dominated by private providers at the present time. If public schools get to use tax dollars to set up their own early ed programs that landscape could change quickly. Many private providers, in fact, didn't realize until recently that there was even such a bill under consideration or what the bill said. That changed when FreedomWorks, a new 501c4 grassroots advocacy organization, sent out a mailing to private providers warning them of the potential risk to their businesses if S.132 moves forward in its current format. The mailing prompted a story from the Brattleboro Reformer in which one childcare provider accused Freedomworks of "using scare tactics" and having its facts wrong. However, when Freedomworks Director Rob Roper personally contacted the provider, it turned out she hadn't even seen a copy of the bill. He urged her to read it. Childcare providers who take the time to actually read the bill, instead of relying on the interpretations of statewide groups (either in support or opposed to the bill), can determine for themselves if they believe the bill will help or harm them. Things are moving slowly in both Senate and House Education and there's a chance this bill won't have time to make it through the session. If that is the outcome, the question then becomes -- will the VDOE once again try to enact it through the rule-making process? Stay tuned.  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.htm SENATE 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.us HOUSE 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.  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... From... THE EDUCATION INTELLIGENCE AGENCY COMMUNIQUE - May 16, 2005 On the web at: http://www.eiaonline.com NEA WANTS TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY... BUT NOT THAT BADLY In its latest effort against altering the Social Security system, the National Education Association will contribute $200,000 to Americans United to Protect Social Security, a 501(c)(4) organization backed by AFSCME, the AFL-CIO and several other liberal interest groups. Last week, NEA submitted testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee on the Social Security privatization issue. The union's statement declared, "Social Security is more than a retirement plan. It is our nation's most successful social insurance program. Proposals to privatize the system have thus far ignored the impacts on children who receive survivor benefits and persons with disabilities who rely on Social Security to survive. The impacts on these most vulnerable populations cannot be ignored." This heartrending appeal might have more impact if it weren't for the fact that about 900,000 NEA members - about one-third of its total membership -- don't contribute to Social Security. According to NEA's own data, 12 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada and Ohio) and some districts in Georgia, Rhode Island and Texas have separate retirement systems for teachers. These teachers are exempted from Social Security taxes, instead contributing to their own retirement systems, which are run for, and often by, teachers. What about the orphans and disabled persons who rely on Social Security to survive? Wouldn't they benefit from having 900,000 more workers contributing 12.4 percent of their wages to the fund (about $5 billion annually)? "NEA strongly opposes any such mandatory coverage," reads the NEA policy. Why? Because it "would be detrimental to teachers and other public employees and would create financial burdens for states and city governments," and "would weaken existing state and local retirement plans that often offer benefits superior to Social Security." If this is a winning argument, perhaps the Bush administration should adopt it. Instead of talking about private accounts, the White House should just "strongly oppose any such mandatory coverage." Then those of us who wish to could simply seek out "retirement plans that often offer benefits superior to Social Security."  From... THE FORDHAM FOUNDATION On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net TIME IS ON OUR SIDE An article in this week's Time accurately lays out the crucial battle taking place between the Feds and the states over NCLB. Connecticut has filed a lawsuit and so has the NEA (see http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/gadfly/issue.cfm?id=190#2271), and Maine might follow suit (see http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D89TMQE01-125.shtml). Utah might well lose its federal Title I funding, and Texas has been fined for exempting too many special ed students from testing (see http://www.bigspringherald.com/articles/2005/04/23/news/news09.txt). And the list grows. As Time notes, these lawsuits and protests are arriving just as studies are showing that NCLB is raising student achievement at many levels, which the article calls ironic, but not a coincidence, since the pain for states has also been ratcheted up. That has many politicians (especially the 36 governors up for reelection in 2008) wary of having schools fail on their watch and blaming NCLB for their problems. Time observes that NCLB-required testing is fairly cheap--it is the requirements of teacher training and after school tutoring for failing schools that have states up in arms. But again, NCLB isn't about money, it's about change. Time notes, "Over the past 50 years, the U.S. has tripled per-pupil spending in constant dollars, to roughly $10,800 a child, more than almost any other nation. And yet it gets average or below-average results compared with other First World countries." Education Week points out that attorneys are going to have a difficult time winning their lawsuits against the Feds. Procedurally, it will be tough to prove that the NEA has any standing to bring the case. (Even the NEA lawyers have their doubts about the case, according to memos obtained by the Washington Times). Legally, NCLB is simply not a mandate, as Utah is proving by rejecting it. The upcoming battles will be fierce. For the Feds, it's time to stick to their guns. "Inside the revolt over Bush's school rules," by Amanda Ripley and Sonja Steptoe,  Time, May 9, 2005  http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1056277,00.html (subscription required) "Maine suit challenging No Child Left Behind sought in bill,"  Associated Press, May 6, 2005 http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D89TMQE01-125.shtml "NCLB cases face hurdles in the courts," by Caroline Hendrie,  Education Week, May 4, 2005 http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/05/04/34nclbsuits.h24.html "NEA's memo contradicts its lawsuit," by George Archibald,  Washington Times, May 1, 2005 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050501-121733-7110r.htm * * * THE TESTING BLUES Michael Moore is the master of the subtle conspiracy charge, wherein a cabal is alleged with winks, nods, and innuendos without actually being stated. CNN has learned the lesson well. The cable network is airing a special on high-stakes testing (it premiered May 8 and will be shown again May 14).  While brief moments are devoted to explaining how standards and testing can turn around schools, the many teacher diatribes against NCLB and student woes from standardized testing make it pretty clear where America's most trusted name in news stands.  The program insinuates that the problems with the Houston school district miracle/myth will be replicated around the country as a result of NCLB. In describing the cheating that occurred, the blame falls not on cheating teachers but on former superintendent Rod Paige and his "reign of terror." In fact, in true Moore fashion, the program seems to suggest a Paige/Bush cabal to fake achievement, win the presidential election, and force testing on the unsuspecting nation.  While there are plenty of sad student tales, missing are the stories of those hurt by the old system or helped by the new one. As Manhattan Institute's Jay Greene notes (the program was basically Greene vs. everyone else), "Any system [will] create some sad outcome for somebody," and while just giving everyone diplomas "might help some students, you would hurt many more. And that kind of system is rotten, and it's produced the stagnation that we've had for the last three decades."  More disturbing is that this slanted special is a "Classroom Edition" intended to be shown to students. The Internet workbook for teachers (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2005/fyi/05/05/cnnpce.high.stakes/index.html) asks such questions as, "What do you think are some possible 'unanticipated' social, political, economic or psychological consequences that could occur as a result of high-stakes testing and mandatory retention?" Not that we're telegraphing our punches, mind you. "High-stakes: the battle to save our schools," CNN, May 8, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/  *   *   * 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

---

........