________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT October 31, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 42 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... THERE HE GOES AGAIN The legislature's No Child Left Behind Oversight Committee meets again on December 19 and the agenda includes perennial NCLB critic William J. Mathis. Mathis, superintendent of Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union, is scheduled to testify about the costs of NCLB.  Several years ago, Mathis conducted a study on this topic that estimated NCLB would cost the state $158.2 million. (He raised that to $190 million this year.) But $150 million of his original estimate was for "remediation." In other words, because NCLB actually requires schools to help students reach certain proficiency levels, Superintendent Mathis argues it's impossible to do so without bucket loads of more cash -- $150 million to be exact in 2003.  That premise is, simply put, appalling. It means that a major school leader in this state doesn't believe his teachers are capable of educating all children to basic proficiency levels under the current circumstances. It indicates he is willing to tolerate that situation, thus leaving many of his supervisory union's children "behind." And that asking him to change that situation without huge infusions of new cash is unfair. The NCLB Act is a godsend for parents in districts such as his. Mathis, in fact, thinks the state should forgo the federal Title I funding that triggers NCLB oversight. During this past legislative session, Mathis made a Powerpoint presentation to the Senate Education Committee that touched on this topic. Entitled "NCLB and the Monkey Trap," the presentation suggested that "holding on to the Nut" could turn the state into "monkey stew." The "nut" in this case it the Title I money Vermont schools receive -- about $48.5 million.  Mathis is also a senior fellow at the Vermont Society for the Study of Education, a VT-NEA "partner" organization. Vermonters for Better Education, the publisher of this newsletter and not a VT-NEA partner, did a brief analysis of NCLB in 2003 in the form of an FAQ list. To access it, go to: http://www.schoolreport.com/nclb_q_a.htm ENROLLMENTS DECLINING? START A PRESCHOOL The Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union has lost the equivalent of one small school's worth of enrollment in the past few years, according to an insightful article in the October 22 Bennington Banner. Written by staff reporter Chris Parker, the article ("Where have all the children gone?") takes a look at reactions to declining enrollments due in part to declining birthrates over the past 15 years. As the result of these enrollment drops, Parker reports, "area school officials are talking about consolidating their districts through the closing or merging of school buildings, or adding preschool classes in vacant spaces." At Shaftsbury Elementary School, for example, enrollment went from 227 students in 2002 to 202 today. This has prompted Principal Gary Netsch, the article says, to explore adding a preschool within the next year, which could draw roughly 30 students. Pownal, too, is looking into opening a preschool. Critics of the push for public preschool have pointed to declining enrollments as a driving force for many schools, arguing that this bottom-line motivation is hardly the right reason to expand public school by two grades. Some education leaders, however, argue that the current ADM formula for preschool, inserted into the budget in this past session, isn't nearly enough money to cover the actual costs of public preschool. Therefore, they reason, the motivations are not mercenary. Well, okay, then, which is it: Does the preschool ADM amount cover public school's early ed costs and thus ensure schools will be held harmless during declining enrollments -- as promoted in a March Vermont Department of Education early ed conference? Or is the preschool ADM insufficient to cover a public school's early ed costs, and if it's insufficient, how much more should taxpayers be expected to pay?  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... From The Education Intelligence Agency On the web at: http://www.eiaonline.com EIA Exclusive: THE NEW LABOR ORGANIZATION ANNUAL REPORTS: WHAT THEY TELL US AND WHAT THEY DON'T ABOUT THE TEACHERS' UNIONS It has taken almost three years, but we are now beginning to see the first new federal Labor Organization Annual Reports (Form LM-2) submitted by teacher union affiliates. The reports have long been required of labor unions that represent any private sector workers (fully public sector unions are exempt). NEA and AFT national headquarters, many of AFT's state federations, plus about ten of NEA's state affiliates are required to file the report. The U.S. Department of Labor changed the format and requirements of the LM-2 late in 2002 (see the January 21, 2003 EIA Communiqué story "Unions to Face Increased Federal Regulation"). The new regulations require a detailed itemization of spending, disaggregated membership numbers and accounting of agency fee payers, plus the percentage of time each union officer and employee worked on various activities, including "political activities and lobbying." The new form went into effect for the 2004-05 school year, and some of the reports, signed by union officers as recently as three weeks ago, are already posted on the U.S. Department of Labor's public disclosure web site. EIA has completed a preliminary analysis of the reports of national AFT, seven of its state federations, plus the Illinois Education Association, the lone NEA affiliate whose report is currently available. The new report is a vast improvement over the old one, with payment amounts and recipients spelled out in exquisite detail. Previously, such payments could be batched together as contributions or fees, with individual recipients remaining anonymous. The new forms make it very clear who is receiving the union's money (though it's not always clear why). For example, AFT gave $550,000 last year to the Economic Policy Institute, whose reports tend to support the union's positions on vouchers, charter schools, teacher pay and class size. Other recipients of AFT largesse include the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans for Democratic Action, Fair Taxes for All Coalition, and Give Nevadans A Raise, among many more. The disaggregated membership numbers also suggest AFT's "more than 1.3 million members" include an awful lot of people who no longer work in public education, or may have some other asterisk to merit their inclusion. AFT reports 695,000 full-time members, 103,000 part-time members, 22,100 one-quarter, contingency or laid-off members, and 8,400 associate members for a grand total of 828,500. The union also has about 33,000 agency fee-payers. It may take a few years before the reporting is standardized. AFT Oregon put its "membership" at 19, which is the number of Oregon locals in the state federation, and gave no figures for individual members. Where the reports disappoint the most is in their itemizing of the percentage of time each union officer and employee spends on each of the following activities: 1) representational activities; 2) political activities and lobbying; 3) contributions; 4) general overhead; and 5) administration. The LM-2 instructions make it very clear what constitutes political activities and lobbying: "In this schedule report the labor organization's direct and indirect disbursements to all entities and individuals during the reporting period associated with political disbursements or contributions of money. Also report the labor organization's direct and indirect disbursements to all entities and individuals during the reporting period associated with dealing with the executive and legislative branches of Federal, state, and local governments and with independent agencies and staffs to advance the passage or defeat of existing or potential laws or the promulgation or any other action with respect to rules or regulations (including litigation expenses). It does not matter whether the lobbying attempt succeeds. "Also report any disbursement or contribution that is intended to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of anyone to a Federal, state, or local executive, legislative or judicial public office, or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice Presidential electors, and support for or opposition to ballot referenda. It does not matter whether the attempt succeeds. Include disbursements for communications with members (or agency fee paying nonmembers) and their families for registration, get-out-the-vote and voter education campaigns, the expenses of establishing, administering and soliciting contributions to union segregated political funds (or PACs), disbursements to political organizations as defined by the IRS in 26 U.S.C. 527, and other political disbursements." So when the form asks for the amount of time spent on political activities and lobbying, it is asking for time spent on any and all of the activities in the above two paragraphs. However, the instructions also state: "Officers and employees have discretion in determining the allocation of their time. They must only make good faith estimates. No particular records are required to be created. However, if an officer does keep a calendar, for example, the calendar must be retained and made available for examination." Caution! Loophole ahead! An examination of the AFT reports shows AFT President Ed McElroy spent 6 percent of his time last year on political activities and lobbying. (It bears mentioning that last year was a Presidential election year.) State federation president estimates of their time on political activities and lobbying ranged from 30 percent (John Cole of the Texas Federation of Teachers) to 3 percent (David Hecker of AFT Michigan) to 2 percent (Debbi Covert of AFT Oregon). The Illinois Education Association report is even more suspect. IEA President Anne Davis spent zero percent of her time on political activities and lobbying, and of the union's 225 employees and executives, 213 reported they spent zero percent of their time on political activities and lobbying. The new disclosure requirements allow union members and the public to better monitor the activities of these organizations, but there is still some work to be done. Postscript: AFT's LM-2 also sheds some light on a story that occupied EIA's attention for much of the year -- the union's attempted "coup d'etat" against the Federación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR). You can read "Intrigue in Puerto Rico" in the July 15, 2004 EIA Communiqué, plus do a search of the EIA Archives for "FMPR" to read the other 12 installments of EIA's Puerto Rico coverage. Though AFT still has yet to acknowledge any events in Puerto Rico to its members, it appears EIA's efforts were justified by the resources AFT deployed on the island. Last year, AFT spent $2,838,195 on what it called the "AFT Puerto Rico Project," with an additional $71,589 going to a local attorney for legal services, $108,369 to a Rafael Benitez of San Juan, presumably for organizing work, and $8,835 to Prensa Interactiva for publication services. This $3 million expenditure dwarfs AFT's organizing outlay anywhere in the United States for 2004-05. The end result, however, was a defeat at the ballot box and in the courthouse.  *   *   * From The Fordham Foundation On the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net BOOK REVIEW: THE MINDS OF BOYS: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life. By Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens, Jossey-Bass, 2005 If you're a male, read this review in an open field while gazing up a haystack; it might help. Or so think this book's authors, who believe boys are falling behind girls in the classroom because boys have been cut off from the farm since the Industrial Revolution. I kid you not. "If you think back to how your ancestors were educated, you'll notice that until about a hundred years ago, in all parts of the world, our sons' primary teachers were not lone individuals in schoolrooms but families, tribes and natural environments....  Not until about two hundred years ago did printing and the written word become a major part of a boy's educational life. It was at that point that the Industrial Revolution was upon us." It is true that until recently most boys did not learn in classrooms, but don't chalk it up to their preference for being outdoors. Rather, for most of the world's history, education was limited to the elite.  Boys have learned quite well in the classroom, thank you, for most of recorded history. Whether in ancient China, where boys and young men ran a gamut of civil service exams that make current high-stakes U.S. tests look laughable; or late-medieval Europe, where boys studied in monasteries or scriptoria to become manuscript copyists; or in Eastern Europe, where young Jewish males sat at the feet of the rabbi and studied in intimate detail the words of the Hebrew scriptures and commentaries thereon; boys have studied, and excelled, in the classroom.  The authors seem oblivious to such historical facts, however, as they're too eager to impress us with what new technologies (PET scans, MRIs, and SPECT scans) teach us about how boys learn. In very few pages (roughly less than 10 percent of the book), they describe some breakthroughs in neuroscience over the past decade, and then spend the balance of the book suggesting ways schools should change to accommodate boys better. Among their more dubious ideas: introduce "male-friendly" language arts programs that draw on movies and videos.  Still, the book has some merit. It correctly notes that boys are disproportionately diagnosed with ADHD and that they receive the vast majority of Ds and Fs in school. Moreover, if you're into armchair psychology, you may enjoy analyzing Gurian, who goes on ad nauseam about how misunderstood he was as a child. Girls can do so by the fireplace, at their mother's apron. Guys, you'd best take it outside. by Martin A. Davis, Jr.  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

---

........