1.   Utah did not kill school choice
2.   Education governance, consolidation, and incentives
3.   District-wide property tax? – If the districts were bigger?
4.   Editorial – The right incentives for creating larger districts
5.   Taking Charge - Let's Not Institutionalize 3, 4, and 5 Year Olds

School Choice Movement Determined to Expand Fight to Help Children

Washington, D.C. (November 6, 2007)—The Alliance for School Choice tonight released the following statement regarding the defeat of Referendum 1 in the State of Utah.

“The Alliance for School Choice is disappointed that Utah’s voucher program did not prevail in today’s referendum. The Alliance regrets that thousands of disadvantaged children will be denied increased educational options because the voucher program, which was passed earlier this year by the Utah legislature and signed into law by Governor Huntsman, will not be implemented.

The Alliance honors the valiant efforts of the thousands of parents who volunteered their time to support this referendum. These parents knew that ballot referenda, on any subject, rarely pass. But despite this, they worked mightily, and we salute them.

The school choice movement, like any movement for reform, experiences the jubilation of successes and the disappointment of defeats. We have seen disadvantaged parents rise up and demand options for their children, and win. More than 100,000 children are the beneficiaries of a better education because of private school choice in America--more than ever before. And, despite the tens of millions of dollars spent by opponents, the clear majority of the American public supports school choice.

 A setback in one state is just that—a setback in one state. The movement to empower parents to choose a better education for their disadvantaged children remains vital, committed to its mission, and determined to achieve successes.

 Today, school choice supporters across the country are rightly disappointed. But, in our disappointment, we are emboldened to fight even harder to help the children in America who are too often forgotten.

Contact:
Andrew Campanella, Director of Communications
Phone: 202-280-1985, Mobile: 202-276-1303
acampanella@allianceforschoolchoice.org

On November 12, 2007, Burlington Free Press writer Matt Ryan wrote an article entitled “State still pushing district consolidation.”  The conversation about consolidating districts in Vermont started with Commissioner Richard Cate’s 2006 white paper called The Governance of Education in Vermont. In 2007, forums were held all across Vermont to gather input from citizens about the topic of education governance. Commissioner Cate is to report to the legislature about the education governance public process by December 1st.

The Department of Education has posted comments from all of the public forums on their web site.  You can read for yourself what Vermonters think. Largely, the thought of consolidating schools is not very popular. The real question is can we consolidate “districts” without closing small schools or losing what school choice we do have in Vermont? Cate belives that we can.

Ryan quotes John Nelson, of the School Boards Association, as saying, “if the state is interested in this, we need to be thinking about incentives that would make it more attractive to smaller school districts.” Nelson then gives examples of incentives that might make this more attractive to smaller schools. For example, tax benefits and a guarantee that small schools would not close immediately.

What about incentives that would make it more attractive to taxpayers, principals, teachers, and parents? (See editorial below.)

A Constitutional Alternative to Act 60
By Jeffrey Pascoe, 2002/2003

[snip]

The Alternative Plan

So here is a Constitutional way to "fix Act 60": Split the grand list [this has now been done] and equalize the residential property tax across towns based on the total income of district residents. Tax non-resident property at a single statewide rate set to yield a proportion of the education budget equal to the proportion of property owned by non-residents in the state.

For taxing resident property owners, each year the Tax Department would calculate the total income of all resident property owners in each town or district (the Tax Department already calculates this statistic using the three-digit code on state tax forms).

The State would then use the income data to set the resident tax obligation of each town or district to an amount equal to a percentage of the resident property owners' collective adjusted gross income. Districts that spend an average of $7,000 per equalized pupil, for example, might have a tax obligation equal to, say, 3.2 percent of the resident property owners' collective income. Districts that spend 10 percent more would be obliged to raise 10 percent more, and so forth. Individual incomes, of course, would not need to be known to the towns and would remain confidential.

Non-resident property owners would pay the single statewide education property tax rate calculated to yield a percentage of the education budget in proportion to the percentage of property owned by non-residents (PVR already calculates Resident Ownership Ratios). This would be calculated on a statewide basis.  This approach is fair in light of the fact that non-residents cannot vote on local school budgets.

To collect the resident tax obligation, towns would impose a local education property tax. The rate on resident property would be set to yield the total amount of the resident tax obligation. The non-resident tax obligation would be collected using the single statewide rate. In return for this tax effort, each district would receive a per-pupil grant in the amount they voted for. Obviously, there would be recapture and redistribution, fully satisfying the Brigham mandate.

[snip]

Advantages under this plan include the following:

Fully complies with Brigham - equal tax burden for equal education spending.

Uses the tax-deductible local property tax; not a sales or income tax.

Recognizes that property tax rates are not a fair or valid measure of tax burden. Income is largely what determines ability to pay.

Individual tax obligations take into account relative property wealth.

No need to equalize residential property values across the state. Equalization is based on the incomes of district taxpayers (residents). Yet individual incomes do not need to be known to the towns.

Valuation of non-resident property can be accomplished using local, regional or statewide comparables as appropriate, since non-resident education property taxes are no longer related to local spending.

All property owners are treated equally. Income sensitivity would in effect be extended to all residents, but without an accounting burden on the Tax Department. No additional income sensitivity adjustments would be necessary, though they would remain available to those with very low-incomes through the "super circuit breaker" mechanism.

The focus in this issue of the VER is consolidation of school districts. The discussion about consolidation is a complicated one. I would much prefer to use the term “larger districts” to describe what is being discussed. It does not necessarily follow that the creation of larger districts also means the consolidation of schools. If it does, then this is not palatable to most Vermonters. Smaller schools are simply better for children and we all know it. We also do not want the power over the tax dollar controlled by fewer and fewer people.

There are other options. The creation of larger districts is worthy of discussion, but creation of these larger districts should not be at the expense of local control. Consolidation of certain administrative functions could also create certain by-products that would support local communities and families in ways that the current education system cannot. So what should local control look like?

The key lies in the support found within local communities. Who knows the needs of the children better than the local principals, teachers, and parents? Would a single larger district school board that has control over many schools have a better handle on what a local school needs? The obvious answer is no. So, we need to include another piece to the consolidation puzzle to find our way through the discussion.

If it is the case that we need to centralize the funding structure of education and downsize administrative functions, then we need to decentralize the schools and give the power to run them back to the local communities. The new ‘larger district’ or centralized structure would not control what goes on in the school. This centralized structure sees to it that each and every school gets the appropriate amount of money according the students enrolled in each school.

Vermont has a statewide “funding structure.” Education tax dollars are collected, sent to the state, and sent back to the schools. Could an alternative structure work just as well, as Jeffrey Pascoe suggests in his article A Constitutional Alternative to Act 60? Imagine having a district-wide property tax tied to larger districts rather than a statewide one. Would this not be an incentive to bring the control closer to the people where it belongs?

There are other appealing incentives that the state could use to support the desire by some to create larger districts other than those incentives mentioned by John Nelson of the School Boards Association and cited in the Free Press article. A natural by-product of this kind of education governance (i.e. larger districts) could be choice for families. They could choose schools within the district. Money would not move from one school to another. The money would come from the centralized structure within the region. Another natural by-product could be that the local communities would have local control to organize and run their own schools based on the students that enroll there. The amount of money received is based on enrollment. This in turn encourages principals, teachers, parents, and community members to work to create schools that families want to attend. This would truly control costs.

These incentives are worth the effort of creating larger districts.

VBE - We have heard and will continue to hear about the "benefits" of funding institutionalized preschool education for 3 and 4 year olds within a child care setting. There are other important voices that should also be considered when starting out on such an adventure with taxpayer dollars as described in this article. The respect and support for these voices is not always forthcoming. As Vermont nears the end of creating rules to govern how the money will flow to center-based and home-based child care providers, we should remember that this is not the only way to provide a child with a quality preK educational experience. Have we really given up on creating the kind of economy that allows a parent to stay home with his or her own children? Are we creating policies that empower parents to direct the education and upbringing of their own children within the home? Or are we creating policies that make it more impossible for them to choose to do so?

This column discusses ways in which young children learn, how well they learn at home, downsides to preschool, and suggestions for what we can do.

Why do children learn so well at home?

Being at home or with their family in the community allows children to be grounded and feel secure. This frees them to focus on interacting with the world and learning about it. It also allows them to develop a healthy independence that is measured by their ability to function effectively in the world, not by their physical distance from their parents. (Actually, it's more realistic to think in terms of interdependence, since that's what life requires.)

Young children learning at home strengthen their families. In general, the more time families spend together and the more experiences they share, the stronger the bonds between parents and children and among siblings. Observers realize that learning is natural, parents are essential to the process, and experts are not needed.

Children discover things themselves. They learn in ways that work best for them, including looking, listening, and, whenever possible, touching and doing. They naturally use their individual strengths, working at a pace that suits them. They are motivated by curiosity, especially when they can pursue what interests them. Parents don't have to motivate them; in the natural setting of the family, they exercise and maintain their curiosity. They learn because the world is there and they want to increase their understanding and mastery. Knowledge is more likely to be remembered when it makes sense and doesn't need to be memorized.

Children who learn by doing and make discoveries themselves are on a path of lifelong learning. They take responsibility for their own learning instead of waiting till someone tells them what to do and what they should be learning. They gain experience in how to learn, make choices, and ask questions, often without realizing that they are doing something special and important. They just learn, in much the same way as they breathe and do other natural activities.

Real life, as distinct from conventional school life, offers interactions with people of all ages. Younger people help children learn to care for others and give them a sense of how they are growing and what they can do. Older people offer guidance, keep kids safe, and provide good role models.

Free, creative, wholesome play contributes enormously to children's growth and development. It's hard to believe that something as simple, basic, and easy as free play, something that may seem frivolous, is so essential to development. Engaging in various activities develops both large and small motor skills. Explorations that are part of play promote learning. Children develop problem solving skills. Play enhances emotional well-being by giving children a chance to be in control and to express and deal with their fears of monsters, storms, or whatever. Social skills are developed as children interact with each other, practice taking on various roles, and act out what they have seen others do.

Play generally works best when older people, ideally parents, are available if needed. Often there is less competition if children are different ages. Equipment and materials need not be elaborate. Simple things encourage imagination, and real objects used by grown ups are often favorites. It helps if time for play is flexible, allowing children to do this important work uninterrupted until they need a break.

Outside conventional classrooms, children learn from the whole world and are not limited to a classroom plus a few field trips. The world offers an overwhelming number of learning opportunities that don't have to be unusual or expensive to work extremely well. Children learn from cooking, interacting with pets, exploring mud in the back yard, going to the grocery store or library or dentist, watching a plumber, caring for sick or elderly friends and relatives, vacationing with the family, observing parents and others exercise civic responsibilities and make important moral and ethical decisions, etc.

Homes can be set up so they support children's basic health. Among the obvious keys are adequate rest (much easier to accomplish when schedules are flexible and children can sleep when they are tired), nutritious meals and snacks, and wholesome exercise, allowing children to move freely at will and get fresh air. Such health promoters are easier to achieve at home than in a classroom.

But don't children from "underprivileged" homes need preschool?

Poverty, racism, and other social ills are unfair, tragic, and have life-long effects. Our society has a moral and a practical obligation to overcome them. We can learn from countries that have done a better job. For now, except in extreme cases, removing young children from their homes and institutionalizing them, even for a few hours a day, is not a good solution to such problems because it stresses children, weakens families, and creates other problems. It is much better to strengthen families through public policy initiatives such as providing financial support so mothers can be home with young children. We could change tax policies so families with young children had more disposable income, reducing the need for parents to work outside the home.

Does preschool harm children?

Many people assume that because learning is important, schools are necessary. As homeschoolers, we can make an important contribution here by showing people that schools are not necessary for learning to take place and in fact often present obstacles and interfere with children's natural learning. Listed below are responses to people who argue that children would surely benefit from the opportunities preschool offers, would not be harmed by it, and could continue learning in their homes and communities and enjoy the advantages described above during the times they aren't in school.

• Even a short amount of time in preschool can disrupt good things happening at home, many of which require a relaxed, flexible schedule and approach to life without needing to meet other people's timetables and, more seriously, their expectations. In addition, preschool weakens families by separating parents and children, reducing time together and shared experiences, and draining family time and energy in preparing children for school and dealing with the stress and conflicts created by the school environment and its values and demands.

• Preschool undermines children's confidence in their ability to figure out what they need to know and learn it. Children are quick to sense that teachers think they need to tell children what to do and how to do it. It also undermines parents' confidence in their children's ability to learn and their ability to help them. Schools send a strong message: "You are incapable of learning what you need to know from your family and the world around you. You need to go to a special place and be taught by experts."

• Since 3, 4, and 5 year olds are not mature enough to function well in large groups of their peers and without having their parents nearby, negative social experiences and uncooperative, aggressive behavior (including bullying, mean spiritedness, and name calling) are essentially inevitable.

• Both formal and informal testing (observing children and comparing them to each other) are an inevitable part of the school experience in our culture today. Tests interrupt learning and undermine learners' confidence. Because tests are based on the experiences and values of the test makers, they are biased against those with different experiences and values. Test scores do not accurately represent children's learning. They sometimes identify so-called problems that are simply normal differences in developmental timetables and would disappear over time. They can lead to inaccurate labels that become self-fulfilling prophesies and limit and handicap children throughout their lives. Even children who are not formally labeled are assigned to groups based on academic ability. Parents who have the necessary power (which often means rich parents) frequently intercede if they realize that their young children are going to be put into a group with lower academic skills and labeled accordingly, showing that this is recognized as something to be avoided.

• Children who do not meet the schools' expectations and needs are frequently put on drugs that can have serious side effects.

• In addition, there is a subtle shift in parents' and kids' understanding of who is responsible for learning and how it happens. Newborns and young children learn complex ideas from life. Without expensive equipment, visits to the gym, or the guidance of a personal trainer, they use simple exercises to develop physical strength and coordination and begin walking. At the same time, without being taught or having words broken down into isolated pieces, they learn how to use arbitrary collections of sounds to communicate a physical reality or an abstract idea; in other words, they learn to talk. They develop a sense of time, remembering the past and anticipating the future while being in the present. They learn to isolate and identify abstract qualities of objects, such as size and color. And much more. If you are lucky enough to know a toddler right now, or have clear memories of toddlers you have known in the past, think about all the work they do.

This marvelous process is interrupted when someone tries to teach young children. At the very least, this slows down the learning process. Instead of simply learning, children first have to figure out what they are supposed to learn, and then they have to learn it. More seriously, the teacher's lens may distort reality and mislead children. To be sure, some things are too risky to learn from experience and must be taught; you can't play in the street, for example. And it isn't necessary to reinvent every wheel. But as a general rule, the more people discover for themselves, the more immediate, vivid, meaningful, useful, integrated, and memorable their knowledge is.

• Attending school is even more disruptive to this learning process than informal teaching done by parents, siblings, and others. Many people assume that schools have a corner on the market when it comes to real learning that matters. Of course, children who attend conventional schools continue to learn in the real world, sometimes following the same process they followed when learning to walk, talk, think in abstract terms, etc. But the knowledge that gets the prestige, that is considered real and important and serious, is the stuff they learn at school. The really important stuff (how to get along with a wide variety of people, solve problems, make good decisions, exercise leadership skills, deal with ambiguity and change, cook, do important work, etc.) takes second place to multiplication tables and lists of state capitals which can easily be learned in just a few hours.

What We Can Do

• We can become more aware of how and where children learn best.

• We can know about the down-sides of institutionalizing children early.

• We can create a journal of the wonderful things our children or grandchildren are doing and learning, thereby becoming our own anthropologists and advocates.

• Without bragging, we can let others know how well our homeschooled children are doing and that we think this is due in large part to the fact that they can explore the world freely, in their own way and at their own pace, with the security that home and family provide.

• When we have doubts, perhaps because of comments in the media or from relatives or neighbors or some "expert" on a talk show, a letter from the school district telling us to bring our children in for screening, or pressures to work outside the home, we can ask ourselves questions such as: What would my children learn in a conventional school that they need to know and wouldn't learn naturally? Do I want my children confined socially to a few overworked adults and a lot of very young children? Is this really best for my children or is it more about social pressure and perhaps my own misgivings about what my children might be missing? Can I be sure that my children would not become less cooperative and more aggressive and angry, as have many children when put into institutionalized settings at early ages?

Conclusion

As homeschoolers, we have a different and important understanding of both amazing benefits and rewards of learning at home and in our communities and the risks inherent in attending a conventional school, especially at a very young age. The more the pressure for universal preschool and mandatory early childhood education increases, the more our experience and perspective are needed.

© 2007, Larry and Susan Kaseman

We do!  Please 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, PO Box 255, Woodbury, VT 05681. VBE is a nonprofit organization and contributions are tax-deductible.

The VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT is published by Vermonters for Better Education PO Box 255, Woodbury, VT 05681 - 802-472-5491. The Vermont Education Report may be reprinted with the editor's permission. For more information contact: VBE@comcast.net or visit us on the web: http://www.schoolreport.com

VERMONTERS FOR BETTER EDUCATION 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.

Retta Dunlap, executive director
VBE@comcast.net