Each March I travel to Washington, D.C. to participate in a series of meetings coordinated by the Council for American Private Education (CAPE). The meetings typically commence with a day-long gathering of executives of state organizations (CAPSO being one) that, collectively, comprise a national network. Each of us reports on accomplishments, challenges, trends, legislative, administrative and judicial developments that have implications for the national private school community. Key issues are identified and discussed. Practical tips for doing our jobs better are shared. This year, a portion of our time was devoted to a discussion of key findings emerging from the
Cardus Education Survey.
The morning of the second day features a joint meeting with CAPE's board of directors. Here, we have the opportunity to distill the salient elements of the previous day's discussions in the form of a series of briefs, hear presentations from distinguished guests, and engage in the fashioning and coordination of policy. This year's meeting featured two engaging speakers: Robert Enlow, President and CEO of the
Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, and Dick Komer, Senior Attorney at the
Institute for Justice.
During the afternoon of the second day, while the CAPE board conducts the business portion of its meeting, my State-CAPE colleagues and I head to the U.S. Department of Education to meet with the staff of the
Office of Nonpublic Education and other USDE colleagues. The purpose of these well-organized and always-useful meetings is to keep us abreast of emerging developments in federal programs, legislation, regulations and guidance, familiarize us with various resources, and answer our questions concerning the implementation of federal education laws.
On the final morning of our time together we convene in the Capitol, where we receive a series of briefings from legislators and staff, and have an opportunity to air concerns and present ideas. This year, Congress was in recess at the time of our meeting, so we heard from staffers, only. (They're the ones who actually run the place, and I'll have more to say about them, shortly.)
Reflecting on the proceedings while flying back home, I quickly decided on two high-points and a low-point. The first high-point remains constant from year to year. The greatest of all pleasures derived from my work is that the people with whom and for whom I work are simply
the best. The accompanying high-point was the recognition that school choice programs are burgeoning across the country.
In the past year, alone, 13 states enacted 19 pieces of school choice legislation. Of these, 8 brought new programs into existence, and 11 expanded the parameters of existing arrangements. Some form of school choice (involving private school options) now exists in nearly 40 percent of the states, and over 200,000 children now use school vouchers or funds generated by education tax credits to attend private schools. That's still a modest number, but one that has doubled over the course of the last seven years. The expansion of school choice programs will permit broader and deeper research that can, over time, develop a clearer picture of what happens when funds are shifted from the producers of education and placed in the hands of consumers. The fiscal challenges of the past several years have, apparently, led states to increased experimentation with options presumed to be more cost-effective. As the saying goes, where there is challenge there is also opportunity, and these are exciting times.
The low-point of my trip occurred, upon reflection, as a result of an off-the-cuff remark made by a youthful congressional staffer during the course of our Capitol Hill briefings. Before I reveal what she said, it's important to note that interaction with Congressional staff is always among the highlights of a trip to D.C. The staffers are idealistic, energetic, mostly young and always passionately committed to making a difference, regardless of the party affiliation of their respective bosses. They are often among the best and the brightest of our college and university graduates. Many are success stories in their own right. Not surprisingly, a good number happen to be private school graduates. Regardless of where they went to school, all provide living testimony to the importance of education.
For all the apparent glamor of working on "The Hill," the life of a congressional staffer is by no means easy. Stand in the halls of any of the congressional office buildings and you'll observe a dizzying stream of individuals and groups going in and out of the members' offices, each wanting to air his/her/their views, each wishing to feel heard, all seeking validation and positive feedback. More times than not, it is the staffer - in addition to his/her other responsibilities - who is called upon to receive the never-ending flow of visitors. In a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we are all lobbyists.
So what did I hear that so troubled me? The young woman said something like this: "People are saying that they've never seen as much staff turnover as what we're seeing now." Somehow, the remark came back to me while on the flight home, and the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me.
When last I had looked at the
Real Clear Politics Congressional Job Approval rating, I'd found it hovering at the number of eggs in a carton. (And
not the 18-egg cartons I buy at Costco, but the 12-egg cartons at Trader Joe's.) But that dismal figure reflects a good number of jaded old fogies like me, whose patience grows ever shorter and whose political idealism comes in ever more sporadic fits and spurts. Congressional staffers leaving in droves provides a more chilling and, perhaps more accurate measure of just how bad things really are on Capitol Hill. And somewhere over Indiana it occurred to me that one need only consider the sad saga of NCLB/ESEA to appreciate the source of their disillusion.
If ever there was a bipartisan piece of legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act was it. One tends to forget that the late Senator Ted Kennedy and U.S. Representative George Miller - then the leading Democratic education policymakers on the Hill -
both flew to Ohio to take part in the bill signing ceremony, as President George W. Bush penned the measure into law in January, 2002. The proceedings took place in the home district of Congressman John Boehner who, at the time, chaired the key education committee in the House of Representatives. One big happy family.
And yet, the law that they created,
together, was quickly regarded as unworkable - or worse, and states quickly figured out how to "game the system," by back loading "adequate yearly progress" targets and "dumbing down" assessment measures in the expectation that the law would be changed well prior to the 2014 deadline at which time all students were to have achieved proficiency in reading and math. Now, with the deadline just around the corner and a politically polarized Congress either unwilling or unable to update the law, the Obama Administration has offered states a way out of its accountability requirements and corrective actions in the form of waivers. To receive the waivers, states must agree to adopt a series of education reforms mandated by the U.S. Department of Education.
To date, more than half the states have submitted waivers applications. Already, the administration is hearing that the promised reforms are proving difficult to put in place. States are beginning to play the same kind of games with respect to the implementation of their waivers obligations as we witnessed with NCLB.
Meanwhile, California's State Board of Education is poised to present a "state-defined" application (during the heart of the presidential election campaign, this coming fall) in which the state will, presumably, seek relief without promising to abide by the full slate of reforms. Key portions of a law that was turned into a mockery are being replaced by a policy that's being met with "wink-wink, nod-nod"
mauvaise foi, or, as in the case of California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson,
public disdain.
How can such developments do other than quash the idealism provided by our young public servants? We can do better than this. We have to. The best of the next generation of leaders is telling us so...with their feet.
Ron Reynolds
