Vermont Put Their Children First…Why Didn’t Connecticut?

24 Comments

“As the Vermont Department of Education has continued to negotiate for the flexibility that was promised since we started in August, it has become clear that the U.S. Education Department is interested in simply replacing one punitive, prescriptive model of accountability with another,”     -     ­Spokesman, Vermont Department of Education

As U.S. Secretary of Education prepared to come to Connecticut to announce that he had granted Governor Dannel Malloy’s request for a federal waiver on the No Child Left Behind Law, the Brattleboro Reformer newspaper’s headline read; Vermont Drops Request for No Child.

Vermont’s State Board of Education was one of the 37 states to request a waiver but later voted to withdraw its application when it became clear that the state would not be allowed to develop its own “measurements for progress and teacher qualifications.”

Stephan Morse, Vermont’s Board of Education Chairman, said that they decided to drop the waiver request because “there was no room to do much of anything under the waiver. All of the requirements of No Child Left Behind remained in place.”

The Brattleboro Reformer newspaper reported that Vermont state officials had engaged in “a series of time-consuming negotiations as it attempted to create its own system of measurement and accountability that relied less on standardized tests and punitive actions against teachers, administrators and schools.”

However, according to the reports, “it became more and more apparent that the U’S Department of Education would not be willing to budge on many of Vermont’s requests, and so when the latest letter arrived in Montpelier asking for more details the State Board of Education decided to cut its losses and move on.”

So yesterday, as Vermont’s children, parents, teachers and school administrators breathed a big sigh of relief that Vermont was not going to jump from the “standardized testing frying pan into the standardized testing fire,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan flew to Connecticut so that he and Governor Malloy could announce that Connecticut would go where Vermont was smart enough not to go.

The CT Mirror reported the news that it was “A federal boost for Connecticut’s education reforms,” CT Newsjunkie led with Malloy’s quote at the press conference, Gov. to Feds: ‘It’s About Time’ and the Hartford Courant went with U.S. Education Secretary Grants Connecticut’s ‘No Child’ Waiver Request’ (click on headlines to read their stories).

Perhaps the Courant summed it up best when they wrote;

“With Gov. Dannel P. Malloy beaming at his side, Duncan said that Connecticut was one of eight states granted waivers Tuesday.

If Connecticut lawmakers hadn’t passed a substantial package of education reforms earlier this month, Duncan said, “I don’t think I would have been here.”

Among the others who attended the press conference to join in the victory dance and get in the “photo op” where a number of Connecticut legislators, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal and Congress members Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy.  Bridgeport’s part-time, acting superintendent of schools Paul Vallas was also among the VIPs on stage with Malloy.  (Duncan is Vallas’ protégée and took over the ongoing effort to privatize Chicago School System when Vallas left to go on to do his damage to Philadelphia public schools.)

Apparently the cadre of elected officials did not mention Vermont’s decision to put its children first nor the CT Voices for Children study that warned about the negative consequences of receiving a waiver.

See yesterday’s Wait, What, Test them, test them and then…test them again: The Federal Waiver is NOT the solution. or the CT Voices report at http://www.ctvoices.org/publications/understanding-connecticuts-application-waiver-no-child-left-behind-act

Be Sociable, Share!

  • Guest

    And with a federal rubber stamp, none of the crimimal lobbying actions committed by the reformers will by persued. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

    • guest

      Is it true that the lobbying and possible conflicts of interest won’t be pursued?

      • jonpelto

        I think they are being pursued – whether the Administration can influence the process may be a different question.

        Sent from my BlackBerry please excuss typos

      • TMS

        Who is pursuing the issue? Is it the same board of ethics that said there was no conflict of interest with Stefan Pryor as head of the state board of ed?

  • Pingback: Vermont Stands Up for Its Children « Diane Ravitch's blog

  • TMS

    I must say that this might be a deal breaker for me when evaluating the presidential candidates. It’s hard for me to understand why President Obama is ignoring so much evidence documenting how destructive his education reform policies have been, especially the excessive teaching to tests. The economy is important, but even if it were improving at a better rate, the only jobs our kids will be prepared for in the future are the ones earning minimum wage. There is no considerationf for the quality of live these kids will have.

    What so ironic to me is that Connecticut has adopted this “still revolutionary” theme, which is based on the historical achievments of local entrepreneurs, innovators and inventors such as Samuel Colt, Horse Smith and Daniel Wesson (Winchester Firearms), P.T. Barnum, Charles Goodyear, but our educational system is going backwards and doing away with developing the critical thinking in our kids that’s necessary to generate new ideas and create new businesses and industries.

    • CONconn

      Unfortunately, Romney’s recent speech is just as terrible. There’s no way to win these days:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/romneys-education-speech–text/2012/05/23/gJQAUAtpkU_blog.html

      • TMS

        I REALLY hope you’re wrong about that CONconn. We can’t give up. Thanks to Jon, no one can say they didn’t know the truth about what’s actually going on with this so called education reform.

      • Magister

        Blech. Do all these people have the same speech writer? I feel like I have read that speech a hundred times from the various “reform” plutocrats.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tommy-Burns/712565941 Tommy Burns

        Romney is an empty suit—and would be a disaster concerning education–but his friends would make more money and the least fortunate kids would be left behind—-

    • Msavage51

      Yep, sadly there doesn’t appear to be a good choice come November. Romney would be a disaster–I have absolutely no doubt about that. But Obama appears to be a puppet as well. I’m sick and tired of the “lesser of two evils.” What to do?

  • anniemil

    Go Vermont!! I’ve always said there are 49 states…and then there’s Vermont! They’re such independent thinkers.  They care and watch out for everyone, including children…and teachers. And have 2 great senators to boot. My daughter’s certified to teach there; maybe she should move for her sanity.

  • CONconn

    This is just disgusting. We need to get Dannel out of there.

  • Magister

    At what point will school districts simply refuse to comply with this nonsense and take it upon themselves to do what is best?

    • sharewhut

       $$$$$$
      The Sword of Dannelcleties.

  • sharewhut

    Anyone need to bother to apply?
    Or must your name already be on the nameplate?
     http://das.ct.gov/HRDocs/JobsExams/767%20for%20DAS.pdf%20EDUCATION.pdf
    “Minimum Experience and Training Required:
    Education Consultant: An earned advanced degree and eight (8) years of relevant professional experience or in lieu thereof, an equivalent combination of experience and training as approved by the appointing authority.
    Associate Education Consultant: An earned advanced degree and five (5) years of relevant professional experience or in lieu thereof, an equivalent combination of experience and training as approved by the appointing authority.
    Job at the Bureau of CHOICE PROGRAMS.
    Maybe semantics, but shouldn’t it be ‘Program Choice’?
    Or are they referring to choice jobs for the chosen few (well in this case it’s beyond a few)?

    • sharewhut

       I can think of a few choice words for this whole band of CONN ARTISTS!

    • Linda174

      Just what we need…more jobs at the top with a starting pay of $100,000 and up and less people who work directly with children making $40,000-$50,000, you know…the lowly teachers. We could get 4 teachers for these two positions. 

      Stefan has created a lot of new positions at the SDE….he is doing his part to lower the unemployment rate.  I assume no teaching experience will be necessary.

  • Linda174

    Jon,

    Does Vermont lose fed. funding? What are the reprucussions and why wouldn’t more states do this if there aren’t any or they are not significant?

    • CtVeteran

      Sorry for stepping in here Linda, but you cant lose something you dont  have or dont want. That is the key. Vermont probably doesnt need the Fed. dollars and isnt whoring themselves out the way Pryor and Malloy are with the sweeping changes just to get RTT money to cover your overspending in other areas. 

      CT – the greatest welfare state in the country. (this is an opinion of course)

      • Linda174

        Thanks…maybe we should get rid of the fed. Dept and just keep our money. Now we have to jump through hoops that are ever changing with no guarantees..I read everything all the time and I can’t figure out what we actually get in return except for edubabble, photo ops and vague promises.

  • Pingback: Group Link Post 05/31/2012 | KJsDiigoBookmarks

  • Pingback: Mr G's Idle Musings » Blog Archive » My Diigo 05/31/2012

  • Djmaster920

    Go Vermont! They are one of the few states that refuses to give in to this corporate takeover of education, and it’s terrible that Duncan (the bloody idiot he is!) refuses to let VT create their own system. I currently work as a Special Education in Boston, and MA is working on a piece of legislation that would publish the student test scores of each classroom teacher. It would also make it easier for principals to get rid of experienced teachers who get paid more and replace them with cheaper ones. It did not work well in NYC and if it passes in Mass, then I’m moving to Vermont. It would be a bit of a pay cut from I’m making, but I would rather work in a place like Burlington where teacher collaboration is encouraged and teachers are respected and not questioned by people who have no experience in the field of education.

    Hopefully Vermont can show the rest of the country we are on the wrong path, and will lead the way forward the way have many times before.