CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer

Schools should be able to "select from a range of accrediting bodies that reflect a variety of rigorous standards and procedures for accreditation."
Accreditation - whether for an individual school, or a system of schools - "should respect and incorporate the unique identity and purpose of a school by including standards and indicators that reflect the school's particular mission and culture."
"States should recognize multiple accrediting bodies, providing schools with a choice in accreditation philosophies and protocols," lest schools face state mandates forcing them to undergo accreditations conducted by entities that are not attuned to their particular purposes and cultures.
The accreditation process must include, "peer review, self-study, and a comprehensive and thorough examination of all the indicators of a quality school, including a rich pedagogical/cultural life and sound business practices."
Finally, "accreditation should examine, affirm, and improve a school's culture, including the extent to which the school fosters a caring and supportive environment, promotes parental involvement, and develops values, ethical motives, basic beliefs, respect, integrity, enthusiasm for learning, and authenticity among its students.

Among the significant developments informing the creation of the policy paper is the ascendancy of AdvancED from within the constellation of school accrediting agencies. AdvancED is a nonprofit education services corporation formed in 2006 through the merger of the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement, and the National Study of School Evaluation. The entity bills itself as the "world's largest education community, representing 27,000 public and private schools and districts across the United States and in 65 countries worldwide and educating 15 million students."

Last month, AdvancED's President and CEO, Dr. Mark Elgart, spoke to CAPE's board of directors and State-CAPE organization representatives (CAPSO included) in Washington, DC. A comprehensive summary of Dr. Elgart's remarks, including responses to questions, can be found here. Much of the session revolved around AdvancED's substitution of "partnership" arrangements for previously existing joint-accreditation frameworks. The issue is discussed on pages 3-5 of the summary. Another hot-button issue, district-wide and/or association-wide accreditation (as opposed to the accreditation of individual schools) is addressed on page 7. The entire document should be of interest to readers concerned with the future direction of school accreditation.

"The Cartel"

Motion pictures can be powerful vehicles for informing political consciousness and swaying public opinion. Film maker Michael Moore has amply demonstrated the existence of a receptive market for public policy documentaries. Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Moore, or the positions he espouses, it is undeniable that his films have not only been commercial successes, but have been hugely successful at sparking national conversations around the issues they address.

In a new documentary titled, "The Cartel," film maker Bob Bowdon delivers a no-holds-barred examination of New Jersey's public education system. Exposing not only waste, fraud and abuse, but rampant theft, bribery and extortion in the state that spends more per-capita on public K-12 education than any other, the film pounds home the message that it's all about money.

In one segment, former state history teacher of the year Beverly Jones relates her discovery of fiscal impropriety in the form of "phantom salaries," and unjustifiable grade-retention of students. "The children are not the focus," she mournfully tells the interviewer. "Money is the focus." She also shares that her colleagues are afraid to speak out because they fear losing their jobs.

The film apprises viewers that, on average, a public school teacher in New Jersey receives a salary of $55,000. The average spending per K-12 classroom, however, is frequently in excess of $300,000. In Newark alone, over 400 administrators earn salaries eclipsing $100,000. In some districts, more than ninety cents out of every dollar is spent somewhere other than teachers' salaries.

Mr. Bowdon assigns schools to one of two categories: private independent, religious and charter schools are designated "schools of choice," while traditional public schools are labeled "zip code schools." The film suggests that New Jersey's charter schools produce superior academic results even though they receive two-thirds the funding of "zip code schools," and admit students by lottery.

The E-Mailer has, thus far, been unable to find any statement or commentary on the film by either the National Education Association, or the American Federation of Teachers. It is, in fact, proving difficult to unearth substantive criticism of the film. The New Jersey Education Association's response appears to come in the form of a two-page document titled, "Research about "The Cartel" - and who is behind it," which links some of the film's producers and backers to right-leaning and/or libertarian think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Alliance for School Choice, Cato Institute, and others.

"The Cartel" is scheduled to open in Los Angeles on April 16, and in San Francisco, April 30. Excerpts can be viewed online, here, and additional information about the film can be found, here.

Quick Takes

Illinois Senate Passes School Voucher Bill

Last week, the Illinois State Senate passed a school voucher measure by a vote of 33-20. The legislation, sponsored by Senate Member Reverend James Meeks, would establish a pilot school voucher program available to some 22,000 students attending 49 chronically under-achieving elementary schools in Chicago. The bill provides another noteworthy example of school choice effectively positioned as a civil rights issue.

Have a Few Laughs Courtesy of the "Gladfly"

Each Thursday, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute publishes The Education Gadfly, a web-based compendium of education policy commentary and reviews of current literature whose thoughtful contents are oft-mentioned in the E-Mailer. With last week's publication date falling on April Fool's Day, the Gadfly morphed into the Gladfly, a publication of the Thomas B. Boredom Finnstitute. (Chester E. "Checker" Finn, Jr. is the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's president.) This year, the Gladfly crew has outdone themselves, starting with the interception of a memo from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to Rahm Emmanuel (warning: strong language), and including reviews of research studies titled, "Voice Without Equity: Hip-Hop Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards," and "The Best Charter Study Ever in The History of All Charter Studies Ever Done Up To This Point." The Gladfly's review of the latter piece of research commences by informing readers that "A new report released by CREDO finds that, after 13.8 days in their new schools, charter students don't outperform matched-traditional-school children in choral music or physical education."

Jaime Escalante

The education firmament lost one of its brightest stars last week with the passing of famed math teacher Jaime Escalante, subject of the hit 1988 film, "Stand and Deliver." Mr. Escalante, 89, achieved acclaim for having inspired young Latino students in one of L.A.'s toughest schools to master calculus. Himself an immigrant, having been raised and educated in La Paz, Bolivia, Mr. Escalante arrived in Los Angeles at the age of 33 with little knowledge of English and $3,000 to his name. He supported himself, initially, by mopping floors in a coffee shop, while studying English at Pasadena City College. He began his U.S. teaching career at the age of 44. His is the story of an immigrant whose eventual riches consisted of turning around countless young lives. You can read the L.A. Times' obituary, here, Jay Mathews' remembrance, here, and a tribute by former CAPSO president Robert A. Teegarden, here.

The Biggest Losers

Do you ever wonder why the contestants on the popular television show, The Biggest Loser, choose to subject themselves to the humiliation and rejection that are essential to a certain sub-genre of reality tv shows? Is the proverbial "fifteen minutes of fame," so compelling that contestants are willing, if not eager to set aside their dignity in pursuit of (fleeting) notoriety?

I will grant that the contestants on The Biggest Loser are motivated, in no small measure (and yes, that was a mixed metaphor), to lose weight and become healthier. Surely, airing their flab in front of millions of viewers, entering a highly visible competition, and obtaining the services of excellent support personnel serve as strong motivators to shed the pounds. One might even argue that the greater the humiliation, the greater the motivation.

But what happens after a contestant loses? I'd bet dollars to donuts that the majority soon revert to their former lifestyles, and regain some, if not all the weight lost while on the show. After all, the show's an exhibition. It's not the way normal people lead their lives, or go about changing the way they live. And while some of us may be capable of sustaining radical life makeovers, most of us, alas, are more than content if and when we succeed in achieving incremental, itsy-bitsy changes.

I share these musings because it occurs to me that many of the first-round losers in the federal Race to the Top Fund competition may be feeling the same sense of disillusionment and chagrin experienced by so many reality tv show contestants, with little to show for having endured their humiliation.

Consider the current position of our own state. In order to compete for what was hoped to be a $700 million slice of a $4.35 billion pie, California state legislators argued their way through a series of contentious, non-partisan deliberations resulting in bills that:

first contained and later removed a provision eliminating the state's cap on charter school growth;
removed the so-called "firewall" preventing the use of student achievement data to evaluate teacher performance, statewide, and;
enabled a majority of parents in up to 75 schools determine whether significant reforms are to be implemented.

As it turns out, only two of the forty original contestants (Delaware and Tennessee) have, to date, been anointed winners in the RTTF competition. California has been kicked off the island, as it were. And, while first round losers have another chance to compete for a chunk of the remaining $3.4 billion, a considerable number of first round losers are balking at the thought. A New York Times article quotes Rick Miller, the California official responsible for coordinating the Golden State's RTTF application, as saying, "There's a serious conversation going on here about whether it makes sense to put all that time and effort in again to reapply." The article also advises readers that Mr. Miller "...has since left state government."

What will California do? If the state opts to re-enter the competition, it will need to move fast to meet the June 1, 2010 application deadline. How will the decision be made? A massive, looming budget deficit is certain to be taken into account. So will the upcoming November election. And let's not forget the teachers unions and school board associations - powerful interest groups whose reluctance to endorse California's initial bid might have been the single most important reason for the state's failure to have emerged a winner. All these considerations are surely at play.

But what about the kids? Shouldn't serving the best interests of our students drive the allocation of resources rather than vice-versa? Does anyone really believe that fifteen minutes of fame - even with an accompanying $700 million prize - will produce lasting reforms that accrue to the benefit of students? If our leaders and elected officials were pursuing other policies prior to RTTF, what makes us think they won't revert once the competition ends, even if we win? Call me skeptical, but in this competition I fear it is our kids who will end up being the biggest losers.

Ron Reynolds