School starts this week (where it didn’t already start), as does – despite this year’s weird delay – Vermont’s general election campaign.

The two are related.

Whether they should be is a matter of legitimate disagreement. Some argue that education should not be “politicized.” Perhaps not. But it always has been and always will be, if only (and not only) because education accounts for more state and local tax dollars than any other function of government.

And this year, there’s little doubt that Republican Brian Dubie and either Democrat, Peter Shumlin or Doug Racine, will have very different ideas about schools and how to pay for them.

So the News Guy today begins a series of several connected (though not consecutive) posts about Vermont schools – what’s wrong with them and what’s right; how much they cost and how they’re financed; what the candidates are saying about them.

Consider this post a general introduction, but one that will pose some impolite if not downright insolent questions, starting with this one: is the whole “school reform” movement embraced by both liberals and conservatives – the one calling for more transparency, accountability, and innovation – a lot of hooey?

Especially, perhaps, in Vermont, where according to the standards by which American schools are judged, the schools are quite good.

Some qualification: That question is a question, not an allegation or even a suggestion. Nor should it imply opposition to transparency, accountability or innovation, just some doubts about how those values are applied to American public schools.

And those italicized words two paragraphs above are emphasized because there is a plausible case to be made that schools in all 50 states aren’t very good, that American public education has become so preoccupied by process that it does not adequately transmit knowledge. (To be examined in a future post).

Though it received little attention, the State Board of Education on August 17 voted to adopt “Common Core State Standards” in math and English, actually a national standard promoted by the U.S. Department of Education, precisely the kind of step urged by “school reform” advocates.

At first glance, at least, this policy might be a step toward transmitting more knowledge. But as the Board acknowledged this transition “will certainly come with cost,” as schools and the State Education Department junk their old curriculum programs and the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) testing they have been using for years.

How much cost? The board didn’t say. But with the state likely to cut back on its share of school funding, any cost increase seems likely to fall on property taxes.

That’s one reason to be wary of school reform, and not the only one in Vermont. Earlier this summer, to qualify for $1.2 million in federal aid, the Burlington school district fired Joyce Irvine as principal of the Integrated Arts Academy. By almost all accounts Irvine was an excellent principal, but the school was “failing,” as measured by test scores, and the federal rules required a rough response – such as firing the principal – as a condition of more aid.

But the school did not “fail” because Irvine was a bad principal. It “failed” because it is chock full of children from poor families and immigrant children who do not speak English. Of course those kids do poorly in standardized tests.

There is only one word to describe Irvine’s dismissal: stupid. Not that the Burlington school officials were stupid; they did what they had to do to get the money they thought they needed. The whole structure is stupid, raising an interesting question: is school reform going to teach children that stupidity is the path to success?

None of this means that schools could not and should not be better, nor that, in Vermont, they might be cheaper. But it does raise questions about the wisdom (lack of stupidity?) of some of the “school reform” movement’s specific proposals.

One pet idea of some school reformers can be ignored– vouchers, or “school choice” as its promoters prefer, under which all parents would get vouchers to send their children to any public, private, or parochial school. This will not happen. It has fervent and well-financed devotees. But it is dead.

Who says? The American people. Voucher plans were put to public referenda in ten locations, including such large states as California and Michigan, in the 1990s. The results were clear. Even though in every case the early polls predicted easy approval, voters rejected all ten by large margins.

No, the pro-voucher side was not outspent. Instead the voters learned something during the campaigns. What they learned was that in the final analysis the “choice” (Americans love choice, which explains those early poll results) lies not with the parents or children, but with the private schools that taxpayer-funded vouchers would support. If it is not discriminating on the basis of race, religion, sex (or, in some states, sexual orientation), a private school may accept or reject any applicant for any reason or for none at all.

With few exceptions, the voucher advocates know they’ve lost. That’s why they’ve retreated to their drop-back position, charter schools. These are public schools operated by private (including for-profit) entities which are exempt from the some of the restrictions and requirements applied to conventional public schools.

Charter schools have not been rejected by the public. Furthermore, some of them seem to be quite good.

But others are quite bad, and on balance standardized tests reveal no convincing evidence that charter schools are any better than regular public schools. A report last year by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO)found that “a decent fraction of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students. Nearly half…have results that are no different from the local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their students would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.”

In general, studies have found that students who benefit most from charter schools are poor, minority, children whose alternative is an inner-city school, often in a troubled neighborhood. There are, for all practical purposes, no such schools in Vermont. Still, education reformers recommend establishing charter schools around the state.

A good idea? Or an effort to fix something that ain’t broken?

One more observation before ending this introductory post, an observation for which no special expertise about education is needed. If improving schools is the object, making war on the teachers makes no sense.

This does not mean that teachers or their union should be coddled or granted every wish. The National Education Association is a union like any other. It always asks for more than it can or should (or knows it will) get. In this whiney society, teachers tend to be whinier than most, their closest competitors being building contractors, hunters, and farmers, the last of whom have somewhat more justification for their complaints.

Still teachers are  the employees of the entire community, and dissing your employees is not the way to get the most out of them. Like firing a good principal, it’s just plain stupid.

Yet some folks seem to get their jollies by bashing the teaching profession. One wonders where (or if) they went to school.

But first, some correction and amplification:

Until about 1:15 PM Friday, readers of Friday’s post may have understood that the State Senate was toying with the idea of diverting $6.89, otherwise known as six dollars and eighty-nine cents, from one fund to another.

Presumably most readers of this web site are alert, more alert in this case than is, at least sometimes, the writer of this web site, and understood that what the meant was $6.89 million.

But what’s few zeros among friends? And thanks to the readers who noted the omission.

Also, Sen. Ann Cummings is chair of the Senate Finance committee, not, as Friday’s post said (again, until corrected), the Appropriations Committee. Susan Bartlett is Appropes chair.

Something else was absent from Friday’s post because it was not clear on Thursday, at least not to the News Guy, and apparently not to many legislators. That $10 million to be raised by considering some capital assets – expensive houses, stocks and bonds, etc. – when applying the “income sensitivity” provision on the statewide school property tax is not slated to go into the Education Fund.

Instead, for the first time, money from the school property tax would go into the General Fund.

Like any policy change, this one might be defensible, or even wise. But it does stretch if not violate the understanding that the school property tax would be used to support the schools, not the rest of state government. It’s only $10 million, but when it comes to taxes, experience shows that the first exception is rarely the last.

Now, to today’s main order of business, also inspired by readers who have communicated by email, old-fashioned phone calls, and even older-fashioned personal conversations (you may remember them; the kind where the conversers are actually in the same place at the same time).

The question: why, right after the entire United State Government adopts a comprehensive change in the health care financing system, is the Vermont Legislature passing a bill to study comprehensive change in the state’s health care system?

Good question, because it can be answered with one word: politics.

That’s a description, not a condemnation. Politics, the method by which free people govern themselves, is not a pejorative. It’s a reality.

The political reality against which lawmakers have based their political decision to pass S.88 http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Senate/S-088.pdf (in separate House and Senate versions that have yet to be resolved) is that Vermont is home to a politically significant  minority of voters who are convinced of the superiority of a ‘single-payer’ health care financing system—basically Medicare for everyone.

No, that was an understatement. These folks are not merely convinced of the superiority of a single payer system; they are committed to such a system with a fervor approaching that of a religious zealot’s  devotion to his faith, with comparable intolerance toward dissent.

This too is description not (except for the intolerance part) condemnation. Clearly, there is a case to be made for a single-payer system. It is how most civilized (prosperous, democratic) countries finance health care. In those countries, everyone is covered, they live longer, healthier lives than Americans, and it’s all done for a lot less money per person.

The focus here today. Though, is not on the policy, but on the politics, the first requirement of which is, in the words of  Richard J. Daley to “know how to count,” raising the question of how big is this constituency of single-payer enthusiasts.

Not very. Nobody has polled on the matter, but we are almost surely talking about less than 10 percent of the adult Vermont population, though probably more than five percent. For purposes of discussion, then, let’s say seven percent, or about 20,000 voters.

Ah, but it’s a strategically positioned seven percent. Just about every one of them identifies with either the Democratic or the Progressive Parties. Furthermore, just about every man (and woman)-jack of them will vote. Unless the Progressive Party puts up its own candidate for governor, most of them will vote in the Democratic primary in August. In what is likely to be a low-turnout election, this faction will make far more than seven percent. It could come close to a majority.

Obviously, then, two outcomes Democrats – and especially Democratic candidates for governor — want to avoid are: (1) Displeasing these primary voters and (2) Annoying the Progressives so much that they decide to find a gubernatorial candidate of their own, who would siphon off more votes from the Democratic contender than from Republican, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie. Months ago the Progs declared that Democratic support for a single-payer health care system was among their sina qua nons for staying out of the race.

So it should be no surprise that Sen. Doug Racine, one of the five Democrats running for governor, introduced the bill to engage a consultant to study health care reform, with specific directions to look into the single-payer option. No surprise either that few Democrats opposed it.

There is no suggestion here of insincerity or cynicism on the part of Racine or the other Democrats. Racine has long been a single-payer proponent. He no doubt thinks it would benefit Vermont, and he could be right.

(Or not. If there is a strong case for the entire nation to adopt a single-payer system, there is an equally strong case for a single state to avoid it, for reasons to be discussed in another post soon).

Nor is the earnestness of other Democrats and Progressives in the Legislature open to doubt. Judging from a couple of overheard conversations outside the second floor cafeteria in the Statehouse the other day, some of them are so solemn and intense about the subject that they may have lost touch with reality.

But sincerity and political self-interest are not mutually exclusive, and there seems little doubt that whatever else they may be doing, the Democrats are pandering to one of their core constituencies. Absent that intense minority of single-payer enthusiasts, this bill might never have come before the Legislature.

Again, this is observation, not condemnation. All political factions pander to constituencies. Gov. Jim Douglas, for instance,, has of late been pandering to the home builders and the all-terrain vehicle riders. Politicians not only have to pander, but up to a point they should. It’s part of democracy.

The point at which they should not pander, of course, is reached when the interest of the pandered-to constituency is actually contrary to the public interest. But that does not seem to be the case here. The worst that can be said about this consultant study is that it will spend $250,000 that may not have to be spent. As unnecessary expenditure, this is small potatoes, and for a function likely to be more productive than the comparable expenditure on the pointless pornography-detecting software the Douglas Administration is in the process of installing on state computer systems.

Besides, the process might do some good. The consulting firm is likely to look at the possibility of replacing the fee-for-service method of paying doctors. Many health care economists consider fee-for-service second only to the high price of prescription drugs as an explanation for why health care is so much more expensive in the U.S. than elsewhere.

But the consultant report will not pave the way for Vermont to adopt a single-payer health care system. That’s because Vermont, on its own, is not going to adopt such a system, not now, and possibly not ever. Federal law forbids it until at least 2017, and while Congress could theoretically grant the state a waiver from the prohibition, the prudent Vermonter would be advised neither to hold his/her breath nor to bet next month’s mortgage payment on that outcome.

The real – if not, it should be stressed, the intended — purpose of this legislation is not to change Vermont’s health care system. It is to send a signal to a small but potent constituency. It seems to have worked.

The News Guy is going to (sort of) violate his usual policy today to (sort of) take a position on a bill before the Legislature.

As regular readers know, what the computer nerds call the default position of this site is to inform and to analyze, not to advocate or oppose. There is no shortage of advocates and opponents, hence no need to add to their number.

Besides, to the reporter, casting the same jaundiced eye on advocates and opponents is what comes naturally; joining either side does not.

Worse, in this case, the joining, however conditional, leaves the News Guy vulnerable to accusations of acting out of self-interest. The accusation would not entirely without foundation. The case about to be made here is being made out of the conviction that it is in the interest of the general public. But there is no doubt that it is in the interest of the news business and its practitioners, all of whom have a vested interest in public information being…well, public. That’s why some of them – including the publisher of the Rutland Herald and Barre/Montpelier Times Argus and the editorial page of the Burlington Free-Press — have come out in opposition to H 331, which is likely to get final approval from the Vermont House of Representatives Tuesday.

This post is going to stop just short of outright opposition. The bill, which would allow big-money contributions to the State College system and the University of Vermont to remain anonymous, is complex. It purports to have protections against the most likely abuses. Corporations would not be allowed make anonymous donations, not would individuals doing business with the colleges or UVM.

But just who would decide whether a donor was doing such business seems absent from the legislation, as does how and through what agency the donation would be either returned or revealed.

It is probably true that the colleges and UVM would raise a little less money if all donations of $10,000 or more were a matter of public record. Believe it or not, some folks don’t want their generosity known. A Free Press article last month quoted UVM spokesman Enrique Corredera explaining, “some do so out of humility. Some wish to avoid unwanted solicitation for donations. And, increasingly, donors wish to maintain anonymity to protect the privacy and personal safety of themselves and their families.”

Well, no doubt all that happens. But you know what else happens? A lot more than any of that other stuff?

People hide what they’re doing because they have something to hide. They keep their names from the public because they don’t want the public to know what they are doing. And they don’t want the public to know what they’re doing because they think the public will disapprove. The public might think that the big-money donors are being at least as selfish as generous; that they have an angle; that some of those gifts come with a price.

The public will so think because it is true, often enough if not usually. Any time rich and powerful people (although the rule may also apply to poor and weak people) are allowed to act in secret, some of them will act in their own interest, not the public’s.

Before the lawmakers vote Tuesday, they might take a look at the impacts of anonymous donations at the University of Oregon and the University of Louisville.

……..

The Oregon story is easily available at the News Guy’s occasional collaborator, the news web site VT digger, in a story by Donald M. Kreis about the new $200 million basketball arena and nearby 40,000-square-foot tutoring center for athletes on the campus in Eugene.

There’s no anonymity about the Knight Arena, named for Phil Knight, the head of the Nike shoe empire, and a big contributor to the university. But University officials are not revealing the cost of the other building, the Jaqua Academic Center for Student Athletes, or who is financing it.

“When donors call the shots…outside the normal requirements of public scrutiny, Kreis warned, athletic boosterism can too often become (a university’s) driving strategic priority.”
The University of Louisville is the alma mater of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who is the Senate Minority Leader, and is now home to the McConnell Center for Political Leadership.

Among the Center’s contributors, whose names were kept secret at first, was at least one company that benefitted from “earmarks” McConnell shepherded through Congress, and others with close ties to the senator. As revealed by the web site of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, When the Louisville Courier-Journal sued to get the names of the donors, the Kentucky Supreme Court allowed the University to maintain the anonymity of those who had already contributed, but not of future donors, who, the court noted “may not simply wish to conceal their identities, but rather may wish to conceal the true purposes of their donation.”

Because the secrecy of corporate donations would not be protected by the Vermont bill, the situations are hardly identical. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be those who “wish to conceal the true purposes of their donation.”

It isn’t even necessary to do business with a university to corrupt it. Consider the possibility that the wealthy head of a pharmaceutical or biomedical company makes a secret donation to UVM to finance a health research center. Having put up the money, he has some say in who runs and staffs the center. The director and the researchers will know who buttered their bread, even if the public does not.

What this health care mogul might have bought himself is a study that concludes that the new product his company is about to take to market is a safe and efficacious cure for fallen arches, lower back pain and unrequited love, when a panel of unbiased doctors might have found it as helpful as soda pop. Neither the donor nor his company would have done a shred of business with the University.

Whoever doubts such a thing can happen is invited to Google “medical research fraud,” and prepare for several hours of fascinating reading. And health research is one of the “spires of excellence” on which UVM is planning to concentrate as it rearranges itself for the future.

Members of the House ought take these dangers into consideration. And they ought not comfort themselves by the assurance nothing like that can happen here.

Absent public access and open records, it can happen anywhere