Search

Vermont's education system in 2006 consists of 311 schools (buildings) in Vermont and 284 school districts led by school boards that vary in size from three to 14 members, totaling over 1,300 elected school board members operating a school system that serves about 95,000 students. There is a clear delineation between the superintendent's role in a supervisory district and that of one who serves a supervisory union. Each of the superintendents in the 12 supervisory districts works for one school board and is the educational leader of the school district. The supervisory district boundaries are the same as those of the school district. For all practical purposes, the supervisory district is the school district. In all but two of the supervisory districts there are multiple schools, each with a principal who is the educational leader of his or her particular school. This governance configuration of one board, one superintendent and one or more principals is similar to that employed in almost every other state in the nation. A brief summary of recurring issues raised by students, parents, teachers, administrators, voters, employers and government and private sector leaders in Vermont is provided. The author then offers his ideas for addressing changes in the current system which dates back to 1892. The model presented here is intended to stimulate conversation, and creative ideas for change. (Contains 11 footnotes.)

A task force examined Vermont's special education paperwork and procedures to determine whether Vermont's requirements exceeded the federal requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Upon close examination, the task force found only four areas in which the Vermont special education regulations require more paperwork than the federal regulations: the evaluation plan, notice of evaluation delay, the supplemental evaluation, and the multi-year plan. It concluded that IDEA creates most of the paperwork burden, an increased emphasis on accountability adds to the burden, complex compliance requirements lead to inconsistencies, and personnel are overburdened. Task force recommendations fall into two main categories: recommendations to maximize efficiency in the management of paperwork, record keeping, and procedural requirements, and recommendations that support state initiatives already underway. Recommendations for reducing paperwork include: (1) the state education department should initiate a collaborative process with stakeholders to consider the possibility of a specific plan for selected districts that eliminates selected paperwork and procedural requirements; (2) the department should clarify that clerical support for special education paperwork and record-keeping tasks is an allowable expenditure under the current special education funding formula; and (3) the department should develop and coordinate inservice training for both general and special educators. (CR)

After describing collaboration and its role in school reform, the paper discusses commonalities and distinctions of schools referred to as professional collaborative and as student-centered collaborative, providing examples of such schools and noting the role collaboration has played in their development. The paper recommends that schools push collaboration further. (SM)

This report focuses on cost containment problems in Vermont's special education system and makes recommendations for reform. It examines the context of special education in terms of civil rights, advocacy, and individual versus system needs. The question of runaway costs in special education is addressed and supported with data from the fiscal year 1991 Special Education Service Plan. The report concludes that schools can bring about some fundamental changes in the manner in which children with disabilities are served and bring special education costs into reasonable alignment with general education costs. Recommendations include: (1) improve coordination of special, compensatory, and regular education services; (2) clearly articulate the purposes and parameters of special education; (3) prepare all educators to work effectively with students who have special needs; (4) provide special education only for those students who have a clear and compelling need for specially designed instruction and related educational services; (5) continue the commitment to early intervention; (6) develop service delivery models that achieve maximum cost-effectiveness while appropriately meeting students' needs; (7) keep the public well informed about special education costs; and (8) closely monitor implementation of the special education formula. School district reports of unmet needs in special education are summarized, focusing on the statewide need for an additional 85 specialists. (JDD)

This paper argues that computers in education on the Quebec (Canada), New York, and Vermont borders reflect different styles of education and cultural ethos. This paper examines a 6-month period of this educational innovation from October 1984 to April 1985. In Quebec, the Ministry of Education is involved in the purchase of computers, teacher training, and development of curriculum for computer literacy. The approach to computer use in the classroom is gradual and coordinated on both the Ministry and local levels. In the North Country of New York, local school districts purchase computers and develop systems for their use independently of other districts and, often, without state involvement. In Vermont, decisions about how the schools introduce and use computers are made by the board of education as part of a locally coordinated effort and as a function of the local community. Discussions of the varying uses of computers in each of the three geographical areas suggest that: educational planning for computers in Quebec may reflect a reaction to religion and a need to maintain a cultural identity, a labor-intensive community orientation in New York promotes competition between and continual development of institutions, and emphasis on activities in learning rather than objectives; and in Vermont local control emphasizes democracy and group decision making. (DB)

Responding to the growing consensus among researchers and educators that prevention of learning problems makes more sense than remediation, this book presents essays that suggest ways to improve literacy instruction for all children, particularly those who are at risk. Essays in the book discuss practical matters such as funding, curriculum, assessment, and present numerous case studies of effective programs. After an introduction ("Literacy Lessons in the Elementary Schools: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow" by Richard L. Allington), chapters in the book are: (1) "Redefining and Reforming Instructional Support Programs for At-Risk Students" (Sean A. Walmsley and Richard L. Allington); (2) "Flunking: Throwing Good Money after Bad" (Richard L. Allington and Anne McGill-Franzen); (3)"Estimating Cost-Effectiveness and Educational Outcomes: Retention, Remediation, Special Education, and Early Intervention" (Philip C. Dyer and Ronald Binkney); (4) "Portfolios in the Classroom: What Happens When Teachers and Students Negotiate Assessment?" (Laura P. Stowell and Robert J. Tierney); (5) "Literacy Partnerships for Change with 'At-Risk' Kindergartners" (Lesley Mandel Morrow and Ellen M. O'Connor); (6) "Reducing Retention and Learning Disability Placement through Reading Recovery: An Educationally Sound, Cost-Effective Choice" (Carol A. Lyons and Joetta Beaver); (7) "Eliminating Ability Grouping and Reducing Failure in the Primary Grades" (Dorothy P. Hall and others); (8) "First Grade Teachers Provide Early Reading Intervention in the Classroom" (Barbara Taylor and others); (9) "Scoring Well on Tests or Becoming Genuinely Literate: Rethinking Remediation in a Small Rural School" (Trudy P. Walp and Sean A. Walmsley); (10) "Improving Early Literacy: Vermont Stories of Educational Change from the Bottom Up and the Top Down" (Susan Carey Biggam and others); (11) "Change in Urban Schools with High Concentrations of Low-Income Children: Chapter I Schoolwide Projects" (Linda F. Winfield); and (12) "The Implementation of the Accelerated School Model in an Urban Elementary School" (Stephanie L. Knight and Jane A. Stallings). An afterword ("No Quick Fix: Where Do We Go from Here?" by Richard L. Allington and Sean A. Walmsley) concludes the book. (RS)