________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT August 15, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 31 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... SHE "CAN'T COMPETE WITH FREE": CLOSING A CHILDCARE BUSINESS Wanda Haynes of Middletown Springs is closing her childcare business in two weeks, a direct result of her local public school expanding into the pre-k business. Haynes, a soft-spoken woman with grown children of her own, began her registered childcare business in June of 2002. Before that she was a director of a licensed facility for eight years and only chose to branch out her own after doing some solid groundwork -- talking to local townspeople and teachers. When she first began, she filled her slots immediately, taking in ten children. In February 2004, the Middletown Springs school decided to open an after-care program. However, people from the school were kind and astute enough to talk to Haynes about how it would impact her business. She didn't think it would significantly affect her but was appreciative of the consultation. But in September 2004, things changed. That fall, the school went ahead and opened a pre-k program without so much as a whisper in her direction. The result has been that she works only part-time, picking up children at the school after their half-day program is over. "I'm working half days," she says sadly. "It would be nice to think you could work twelve to six and pay the bills." But obviously, she can't. She could take in infants, she says, but state regulations would prohibit her from taking more than two, and she doesn't feel adequately set up to handle infants anyway. What bothers her almost as much as losing the business is the fact that no one in the town thought to warn her of the school's plans, as they had with the after-care program. She only found out about it, in fact, when a cousin happened to tell her. "I got on the phone and talked to a school board member right away," she recalls. But her call only elicited sympathy, not action. The school board member was "very empathetic and full of apologies" for not notifying her or considering her business. But the program was approved and in place. Haynes chokes up when talking about the lack of communication from school people about their plans to compete with her business head-on. "I can't compete with free," says Haynes. She is currently looking for a new job and has applications in at several facilities. She and her husband are also considering moving from Middletown Springs at least partially as a result of the lack of consideration the town gave her when they set up a competing, taxpayer-funded business that offers the same services for free. STILL RUNNING FROM HIS RECORD Two weeks ago, Rep. George Cross (D-Winooski), chair of the House education committee, wrote a commentary that appeared in numerous papers in the state. His piece (reported in the August 1 VER) could be summed up as follows: Enacting universal early education through a sneaky back-door legislative technique was not really a bad idea at all, but, oh, by the way, even if it was, Sen. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland) did it. As pointed out previously, that is not just a misunderstanding. It's false. Sen. Wilton did not even co-sponsor the early ed bill before its funding mechanism was sneaked into the budget bill. She sponsored an amendment to try to blunt its most negative impacts on private childcare providers.  Trying to make it appear that sponsorship of that amendment was the equivalent of leading the charge for the early ed program is as close as a politician can get to outright lying. Rep. Cross, however, must be sufficiently ashamed of his role in the early ed enactment that he feels the need to continue to circulate this false story in public -- even while acknowledging in private he is being less than candid.  REP CROSS ADMITS HE WAS MISLEADING After letters appeared in papers contradicting his commentary (including a letter written by the editor of this newsletter), Rep. Cross again repeated his canard in another letter to the editor of various papers. In this one, he printed the actual language of Sen. Wilton's amendment as evidence of her starring role in the entire process. Here's the problem with that -- the amendment isn't what has folks upset. The amendment, as stated above, tried to blunt the negative impacts of the early education funding formula Rep. Cross and his colleagues placed in the budget bill at the last minute. Rep. Cross knows this. He even acknowledged it in private. After Rep. Cross's first commentary appeared, the editor of this newsletter emailed Rep. Cross chiding him for his lack of forthrightness. What Cross is doing, the editor of this newsletter pointed out, is akin to saying he was the sponsor of a voucher bill if all he'd done was offer an amendment to try to "fix" it. (Cross is a voucher foe.) After that note, Cross wrote, in a private email to the editor of this newsletter: "Perhaps I could have been more clear. In an earlier and much longer version of my piece, I was a bit more clear about the order of things."  He then went on to complain about his inability to shorten his writing. The only conclusion one can draw from this exchange is this: Rep. Cross and his colleagues continue to draw heat for their part in the early education enactment. Instead of standing up proudly and owning his role in this initiative, he seeks to palm it off on a Republican state senator. Ironically, the more he broadcasts his false account, the more attention he brings to his role in it.  ONE REP ISN'T AFRAID TO TOUT EARLY ED FOR ALL While Rep. Cross runs from his record, Rep. David Potter (D-Clarendon) is proud of enacting universal preschool. In a letter to the Rutland Herald Monday, Rep. Potter states that because the early ed initiative is a public school program, "it should be, and has been, conducted in the same manner as all public school education. That is, open and accessible to all children. Public schools shouldn't get into the business of dividing the little ones and their parents into societal classes based on financial resources." He then goes on to say that claiming this program adds two years to public schooling is a misstatement since all the legislators did was add the early ed program's "own line item." There are a few problems with Rep. Potter's analysis: First, his claim that public schools shouldn't be "dividing" the wee ones based on financial resources means he will be first in line, we suppose, to dismantle the Free and Reduced Lunch program which is, in fact, based on financial resources. A similar program for public preschool fees would probably be less likely to "divide" kids into societal classes than the lunch program. But perhaps Rep. Potter favors offering free school lunches to rich and poor alike as well. Secondly, trying to dismiss as insignificant the impact of the early ed initiative by claiming it merely received its own "line item" is sophistry at best and misinformation at worst. Adding a "line" to any public policy can still have significant ramifications. We're sure, for example, that the No Child Left Behind Act is filled with "line items" Rep. Potter would not so readily dismiss as insignificant. We're eager to hear how some of Rep. Potter's lower-income constituents (especially those without children) feel about having their taxes support public preschool for children in well-off families who could afford to pay a fee for those services.  MEANWHILE, WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST THE WILTON AMENDMENT? Rep. Cross scatters his commentaries far and wide promoting Sen. Wilton's amendment as a good thing, or, at the very least, policy not to be feared.  What he fails to mention is that several key state senators couldn't bring themselves to vote for this innocuous amendment that sought to provide some protection for private preschool providers. Those senators include none other than James Condos (D-Chittenden), former chair of the Senate education committee. If Rep. Cross believes Sen. Wilton's early education amendment represents THE most important early ed initiative passed this session, we're waiting for his commentaries on why his Democratic colleagues should be ashamed of themselves for voting against it -- particularly his friend James Condos who has been a champion of early ed programs and pushed for S.166, an early ed bill, last year, as well as S.132 this year.  CONTRADICTIONS GALORE The sad fact is that those who spearheaded the early ed program are now faced with a growing number of contradictions as they attempt to "explain" their way out of their mess: They claim that power to use an ADM formula for public preschool programs already existed in statute. Yet Sen. Don Collins (D-Franklin) felt compelled to sneak that formula into the budget bill at the last minute during the legislative session, even going around his own committee to do so. They claim that Sen. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland) was a key player in pushing for the early ed initiative. Yet Sen. Wilton didn't even sign on as a sponsor to the early ed bill in committee. They claim that Sen. Wilton's amendment represents the early ed program passed this session. Yet, if that were so, how do they explain Sen. Condos's negative vote when he championed early education initiatives during last session and this one? You can't have it both ways. Either the funding formula was already in statute and you didn't need to add it, or it wasn't there and you did need to add it. Either Sen. Wilton's amendment represents a key early ed program whose passage should leave Senate nay-voters such as Senator Condos hanging their heads in shame, or it was merely an attempt to protect private providers after the damage by Sen. Collins and crew had already been accomplished.  ETHAN ALLEN INSTITUTE WEIGHS IN Many letters have been appearing in papers to rebut Rep. Cross's false claims. Here's one from Ethan Allen President John McClaughry: To the Editor: House Education Chair George Cross recently appeared in this newspaper to rebut unnamed "critics of public schools" who have objected to the legislature's dark-of-the-night passage of a provision authorizing every public school district in the state to create universal preschools for 3- and 4-year olds, and send the bill to the Education Fund. I was disappointed that Rep. Cross didn't identify me as the earliest and most persistent critic of this $70 million tax grab. I was even more disappointed at his purported rebuttal. Space allows only two rejoinders. First: if universal preschool has long been perfectly legal in Vermont, why did Commissioner Cate urge the legislature to pass specific authorizing legislation for it? And when the Senate failed to pass the bill (S.132), why did Senate Education Chair Don Collins take the extraordinary step of slipping the key spending language into this year's budget bill in the closing days of the 2005 session? Rep. Cross says the adopted language merely "clarifies the law." Bunk. The Collins Amendment (now Act 71, sec. 162b) is far-reaching new law. Why the desperate urgency to get it passed? Because existing universal preschools are on very thin legal ice. In my view, the department and some school districts have illegally spent millions of education fund dollars for unauthorized programs, and could get into a heap of trouble for it. Second: Rep. Cross wants readers to believe that Sen. Wendy Wilton introduced the amendment in question. As Sen. Wilton has made clear (perhaps more delicately), this is more bunk. Sen. Collins persuaded the Senate Appropriations Committee to add a new sec. 162b to the House-passed FY 2006 appropriations bill as a "technical amendment". This was done completely outside Sen. Wilton's knowledge. During the ensuing floor debate Sen. Wilton offered additional language to encourage collaborative arrangements between school districts and private day care providers. The Senate and the conference committee agreed to that language, since it was an unenforceable suggestion, not a requirement. But the spending horse was already well out of the barn, and it was not Sen. Wilton who opened the door. I will make the perhaps unduly generous assumption that Chairman Cross is not deliberately prevaricating, but is merely unable to understand legislative documents. Rep. Cross knew this underhanded scheme was going on in late in May, because I called him then and explained it to him. My recollection is that he responded that he was not happy to have his committee cut out of the action on this important matter. He did not, to my regret, give me any indication that he would try to stop this invasion of the money snatchers. Readers who want the full and accurate story of how this deal was slipped through into law will find it useful to consult my article "How Vermont Quietly Got Universal Preschools", in the July 3 Sunday Rutland Herald-Times Argus, available at http://www.ethanallen.org under Commentaries=>Education. John McClaughry, President Ethan Allen Institute Concord  *   *   * WE WANT.....EMAIL ADDRESSES! The Vermont Education Report reaches approximately 3,000 subscribers, but we'd like to grow our list. Do you know anyone who would enjoy reading the VER? Tell them to visit this web site (http://www.schoolreport.com) to sign up for the VER. Or....have them send their email addresses to us at VTBetterEd@aol.com. Thanks!  *   *   * FUNDRAISING BONUSES! Thanks to those who've responded to our annual plea for money! We still need more, though, to support the efforts of Vermonters for Better Education. Remember, we're one part-time staffer and a volunteer board -- yet we've been able to play a major role in education policy in the state. Here's a special offer of thanks to donors who send in a check of $100 or more.... We'll send you a signed copy of David Kirkpatrick's 1997 booklet "School Choice: An Idea that Can't be Conquered." Kirkpatrick's columns frequently appear in this newsletter. This 30-page booklet was originally published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation. For donors who contribute $300 or more... We'll send you a signed copy of a teen mystery inscribed to the child of your choice (provide the name with your donation) by the Edgar-nominated author herself (who also happens to be the editor of this newsletter). Bonus thank-you gifts are available while supplies last. Donors who sent in contributions in the past two months may request one of the bonus gifts by emailing VTBetterEd@aol.com Send in your check today: VBE, 170 Church Street, Rutland, Vermont 05701. (If you'd prefer not to receive the thank-you bonuses, please let us know.) Thanks!  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

---

........