________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT September 07, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 34 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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 DEBATE CONTINUES Newspapers continue to carry letters and commentaries on both sides of the early education debate. Defenders of Sen. Don Collins's (D-Franklin) sneak insertion of early ed funding into the budget bill use the following themes: it's no big deal since schools could use the money anyway, early ed saves money down the road, and critics of the program either hate public schools or are members of the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy). Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden) uses the latter approach in a commentary that attacked Vermont FreedomWorks and defended universal preschool in Vermont at the same time. The commentary appeared in the Vermont Times after Vermont FreedomWorks had placed an ad in that paper criticizing Sen. Condos, among others, for his part in the early ed funding brouhaha.  "Using Karl Rove style scare tactics," Condos wrote in his commentary, "this ultra conservative, right-wing group is attacking the idea of providing more and better opportunities for Vermont's children for their own political gain." Condos then went on to rebut what he considered false claims by FreedomWorks. Reprinted below are his rebuttals, along with some observations by VER: From the Condos commentary: "They claim that the language expands public schools by two grades - IT DOES NOT!" VER comment: If public schools offer early education to children two years younger than kindergartners, that is, in effect, an addition of two grades to public schooling. Perhaps Sen. Condos assumes a grade must be mandatory in order for it to be an official "expansion"?  From the Condos commentary: "They claim that Early Ed programs will cost $70 million dollars - IT WILL NOT!"  VER comment: There are 13,000 preschoolers in Vermont. Those preschoolers could cost the state nearly $60 million if their early ed is funded using the ADM formula inserted in the budget bill. The $70 million estimate is not out of line.  From the Condos commentary: "They claim a legislative trick was accomplished without public input - IT WAS NOT! At least 3 public discussions were held in the Senate Ed committee with open debate on the Senate floor before passage this year. The House also took testimony on Early Ed this year."  VER comment: The Senate Education Committee did take input from experts and others. But their bill wasn't voted on. Instead, the Sen. Education chairman took the funding part of the early ed bill and had it inserted into the budget bill, sneaking around the regular committee process that would have allowed the relevant committee members -- who actually heard the testimony and discussions Sen. Condos mentions -- to change the bill, reflecting concerns of those who testified.  From the Condos commentary: "They claim that church affiliated schools will not be allowed - FALSE! In fact, here in the Chittenden County collaborative there are already at least three church affiliated early ed programs operating."  VER comment: We eagerly await Sen. Condos's amicus brief on behalf of church-affiliated early ed programs when the ACLU and NEA challenge their public funding in court.  From the Condos commentary: "They claim the language will drive existing private providers our of business - FALSE AGAIN! In fact, it is designed to enhance and improve existing providers. Here in the Chittenden County collaborative, existing private providers have benefited by receiving close to $575,000 via the existing program."  VER comment: Sen. Condos had a chance to put his vote where his mouth was and failed to do so. When Sen. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland) offered an amendment on the Senate floor encouraging public schools to collaborate with private providers, Sen. Condos couldn't bring himself to vote for it -- and this was an amendment which merely ENCOURAGED collaboratives with private providers. Sen. Condos was one of only seven senators who voted against the amendment. Why should anyone believe he is looking out for private providers and the children they serve? *   *   * COMMENTARY... TAXPAYER FUNDED PRE-SCHOOL NEEDS ATTENTION BY LEGISLATURE by State Senator Wendy Wilton In the past several weeks, letters and commentaries have appeared in Vermont's newspapers regarding the events of this past legislative session pertaining to taxpayer funded public preschool in Vermont. As best I can, I'll summarize the sequence of events in a simple - and I hope, clear - fashion and then offer some solutions to the problems we now face: In the past few years some Vermont public schools have set up their own preschool programs using money from the Education Fund. Some of these programs have been targeted solely at kids who fall into low-income or special needs categories. Some, however, have been "universal" -- for rich and poor alike, even if the parents could afford to pay. Some have been collaborative efforts between childcare providers and the school, and some are exclusively school based. In recent years, the Vermont Department of Education has been encouraging more schools to get into the universal preschool business, not just providing preschool for special needs and at-risk kids. They've given schools the green light to draw down the Education Fund for this purpose based on the Department's belief that statutes and regulations allow for the use of the money in this way. However, it was not clear if the legal authority existed for this decision. In the meantime, the Senate Education Committee began considering a taxpayer funded universal preschool bill last year and again this year. I sit on that committee and listened to testimony and read through the often-excellent papers of critics and supporters alike. My concerns about taxpayer funded public preschool fall into three categories: its impact on kids who need help, its impact on taxpayers, and its impact on private preschool providers and childcare providers. I made my concerns clear during our committee meetings and was disappointed and surprised when I discovered that an early education funding formula had been placed in the budget bill at the last minute. In a last-ditch effort to at least protect private providers, I offered an amendment to the budget bill that encourages public schools to work with private providers. Unfortunately, mere encouragement isn't enough to ensure that we maintain numerous and diverse childcare opportunities for children. I recently met a childcare provider who is closing her business because, in her words, "she can't compete with free." Her local public school opened a "free" taxpayer funded preschool last fall, in addition to after school care. I don't want to see this scenario repeated throughout the state. It's time to roll up our sleeves and fix this problem. I'm willing to do this and hope my colleagues will make the effort as well. Here's what we need to consider: Taxpayer funded preschool should serve those who need services the most.  Research is mixed on how effective quality preschool is in helping close the "achievement gap" - the difference in academic performance between children at-risk and those who are not. Most studies show that any gains achieved through attendance at quality preschool wash out over time, disappearing by around grade three or four. Nonetheless, some children do need help in becoming "ready to learn" and we should be focusing our resources on those children.  If we make preschool available to all, we risk diluting scarce resources, using them for children whose parents could afford to pay. If we're going to add two new grades to school that are not required, we need to think carefully about who needs our resources the most and who can afford to pay on their own to attend the same program. Head Start, EEE and other pre-K programs already exist -- it seems to me that we should be strengthening access to these programs, first, as many other states have done. Taxpayer funded preschool should not overburden the taxpayer. From 1996 to 2005, Vermont lost 5% of its K-12 students, yet per pupil costs have risen 74%. Eventually, declining enrollments should lead to lower property taxes -- or at least stable education costs. Adding taxpayer funded preschool to our system, however, will make those savings disappear. In fact, if we're not careful in targeting our resources only toward those in need, we could end up with school costs that grow exponentially. In Louisiana, for example, state funding for preschool grew from $15 to $55 million - in only four years. How much more can Vermont taxpayers take, especially older Vermonters trying to stay in their homes? Taxpayer funded preschool should not compete unfairly with private providers. Unlike the K-12 system, preschool services are largely provided by private providers. Many of these childcare businesses are owned by women who've gone through training and acquired business skills in order to run their own small businesses. When they charge for their services and the public school does not, they will lose business. If we construct a preschool program so that money follows the child to an approved provider we can strengthen existing pre-school and childcare centers, which provide supportive and loving environments for thousands of children each day. And there's another major concern for children, parents and employers: There is currently a shortage of childcare capacity in Vermont -- waiting lists are the norm for infant care. What will happen when providers begin to close due to pressure from taxpayer funded preschool programs? We owe it to our kids, our taxpayers, and our private childcare providers to get this right. At the end of the last legislative session, some of my colleagues rushed preschool funding language into the budget bill. It's up to childcare providers, parents and taxpayers to put pressure on my legislative colleagues to join me in fixing the problems created by that rash move, next session. Wendy Wilton is a native Vermonter and state senator representing Rutland County. She is a business advisor in her full time career, and mother of two teenage children.   *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... From the U.S. Freedom Foundation On the web at: http://www.freedomfoundation.us SCHOOL CHOICE REQUIRES COMMITMENT by David W. Kirkpatrick, Senior Education Fellow To achieve meaningful reform is never easy. Powerful advantages, such as long established and functioning organizations, numbers, money, inertia, public familiarity and opinion, etc., are with defenders of what is, rather than with what could be. As has been said, the future has no constituency. Those who benefit from the status quo are aware of that fact. Those who will benefit from a change, while they may have hopes, do not know it for a fact. Capitalizing on this truth, the education establishment, led by the two major teacher unions who have the organizations, numbers, money, and vested interest to do so, has been able to provide massive resistance to every suggested major reform. A common ploy is to resort to name-calling. Among other mud-slinging terms, reformers have been called "school bashers," "the right wing," "religious radicals," "plantation masters," and "voucher vultures." The cries of these Chicken Littles that the sky was falling are beginning to wear thin. The suggestion, of course, is that reformers should give up because they have lost a few campaigns. This fails to recognize legislative victories around the nation, the growing list of supportive court decisions, including the U.S. Supreme Court 2002 decision that vouchers are constitutional. Then there are the scores of successful publicly or privately funded programs across the nation, as well as growing public support as indicated in one public opinion poll after another. Not least of all, for years most public opinion polls find strong support for school choice in general and vouchers in particular. School choice supporters must recognize that reforms challenging the status quo never come easy and the more far-reaching the reform, the more strenuous must be the effort to succeed.  Most of all, the unions fail to note, and are probably ignorant of, what Michael Kazin noted in The Populist Persuasion: "From 1880 until the Great Depression, state and federal judges handed down at least 4,300 separate injunctions against unions." That averages over 80 a year, nearly seven a month, for a half century.  Using their own current rationale, the unions should have given up.  An even more dramatic example was given in Bella Abzug's autobiography. She reported that "Just to get the right to vote it took women, 'fifty-two years of pauseless campaigns, 56 state referendum campaigns, 480 legislative campaigns to get state amendments submitted, 47 constitutional convention campaigns, 19 campaigns to get suffrage planks in party platforms, 19 campaigns in 19 successive Congresses to get the federal amendment submitted and then the final ratification campaign'" Thus the earliest reformers of the women's movement, who had set the groundwork, such as the Seneca, New York meeting in 1848, did not live to see their ultimate victory, the 1920 adoption of the constitutional amendment which gave women the right to vote. Talk about commitment!! Can we do less? Institutions such as the government's schools do not get reformed from within. If anyone is destroying the present system it is not the reformers, who have little influence. It is those who are determined to maintain the status quo against any challenges, deny failings despite all evidence to the contrary, and insist the way to do better is to do more of what we are currently doing, despite ample proof that it won't work. The tragedy, one taking place in many districts across the nation, is that, as Harold G. Shane has noted, "U.S. education probably cannot be expected to change significantly unless an ecological or atomic Pearl Harbor occurs. Inertia, both physical and psychological, must be overcome first." If those with power can sit idly by and watch the futures of millions of youngsters be destroyed, we must not fail. Those who place the children first must stay the course.  Reform is not easy. It takes time. It takes energy. It takes commitment. Most of all, it takes courage. But, for the sake of unknown millions of youngsters, we must and we will succeed. Education reformers, take heart. More progress has been made in the past decade than either the labor or the women's rights movements made in 50 years or more. The system exists for children, not the children for the system. David Kirkpatrick is a Bennington native now living in Pennsylvania. He is a former public school teacher and officer of the Pennsylvania NEA.  *   *   * 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

---

........