The Education Gadfly Weekly

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Praeger Publishers
2003

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Minnesota's gutsy and embattled education commissioner, authored this superb new book, which expertly fingers - and analyzes and explains - two major perpetrators of the theft of excellence from American K-12 education over the past several decades: the "middle school movement" as it has evolved, and the education system's inattention-morphing-into-hostility toward the distinctive needs of gifted/talented youngsters, PARTICULARLY in the middle schools. As is normally the case, both problems began as well-meaning impulses. The middle school was an effort to do right by early-adolescent youngsters by placing them in educational environments that would be sensitive to their developmental and social needs and (in contrast to traditional junior high-schools) would focus on "teaching the child, not the subject." Neglect of giftedness arose from our obsession with equality, a concern that special treatment of uncommonly able kids is elitist, and the view that resources should be concentrated on youngsters who need to catch up rather than those who are already doing okay in school. As with so many good intentions, however, these went badly awry and turned into a profound anti-intellectualism that is undoubtedly a major cause both of the well-known fall-off in U.S. pupil achievement after fourth grade and of our spotty record in nurturing tomorrow's leaders, particularly those from less-than-privileged circumstances. (The well-to-do's capacity to purchase better schooling for their children includes myriad opportunities to hone and enrich the minds of uncommonly bright youngsters living in their homes.) You should definitely read this book, which can be termed a bargain (despite its hard-back price tag) because it tackles TWO big education problems while clearly showing the links between them. The ISBN is 0275981169 and more information can be found at www.waragainstexcellence.com.

G. Gage Kingsbury, Allan Olson, John Cronin, Carl Hauser, and Ron Houser, Northwest Evaluation Association
January, 2004

This report is so interesting, we'll overlook the fact that it cribs the titles of two previous Fordham reports, in 1998 (http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=25) and 2000 (http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=24). This time, however, the title is somewhat misleading, since this report deals not with state academic standards but with the widely varying ways in which 14 states, mostly in the Pacific Northwest, calculate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The researchers developed a common measurement scale across these 14 states by giving at least 1,000 students in each grade a Northwest Evaluation Association-developed test alongside the state's official assessment. The study then compares where the state sets the "cut score" for its own assessment, which determines whether students are making AYP. As expected, cut scores are all over the map, meaning that students with roughly equal skill levels can be labeled failing or proficient depending on where they live. Other peculiarities abound: in Arizona, for example, the math proficiency level is set at the 46th percentile in the fourth grade but the 75th in the eighth grade, meaning that large numbers of students will be labeled proficient in elementary school and failing in middle school. The study falls short of making recommendations on how to fix these anomalies, but does suggest that this problem deserves fuller attention. We agree. Find it at http://www.young-roehr.com/nwea/.

James Tooley, Pauline Dixon, and James Stanfield, Adam Smith Institute
2003

This report from England aims to convince policymakers of the benefits of market-driven education reforms in improving student achievement and expanding educational opportunity for British students. The authors argue that the fundamental problem with British education "lies with the way education is delivered," and they propose "tried and tested" market approaches that stay true to the Department for Education Services' vision, "which values opportunity for all, and embraces diversity and autonomy as the means to achieve it." Among the alternatives highlighted in the paper: Sweden's system of universal vouchers; various European models of tax credits for private education; and America's own experiments with targeted vouchers, privately funded vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Some interesting tidbits highlighted in this report are the fact that England is one of only two European countries (Greece being the second) "that does not financially support private education" (though it did in former years), that Danish parents have a "Constitutional right to set up their own schools and receive state funding," and that German local governments "are required to ensure private schools' existence under constitutional entitlements." While much of the data included in this report has been presented elsewhere, this short white paper is an interesting read for anyone looking for a succinct review of parental choice programs from a cross-cultural perspective. Find it at http://www.adamsmith.org/policy/publications/pdf-files/delivering-better-edu.pdf.

Edited by Chris Patterson, Director of Research, Texas Public Policy Foundation
December 2003

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has compiled a set of papers offering solutions to the mess that comprises the current school financing system in the Lone Star State. With sky-rocketing property taxes, a court case attacking local tax redistribution, and the full attention of the state's legislature and governor, Texas's problems may be national news in 2004. Legislators are expected to come into special session to seek solutions. To frame such debates, this volume showcases a diverse set of authors, including nationally-known scholars such as Eric Hanushek and Caroline Hoxby and local players such as Catherine Clark from the Texas Association of School Boards and Harrison Keller from the Office of the Texas House Speaker. They argue for their own forms of reform, such as choice, revised spending policies, and dramatic tax reform. Much of the volume is quite specific to Texas, so outsiders will find it somewhat less useful. Yet anyone with a general interest in school funding can glean some insights. For example, John Merrifield of the University of Texas at San Antonio argues persuasively for the merits of a voucher-based system; Hoxby effectively shows that the "adequacy method," by which funding levels are based on the amount purportedly needed for adequate schooling, will simply emphasize the needs of interest groups over those of children; and Clark explains how other states have grappled with their own school funding controversies. The Foundation also provides a nice introduction, summarizing each paper, so readers can easily pick among the contents. To download the entire volume or individual chapters, visit http://www.texaspolicy.com/PTST/.

Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University
September 2003

One of the great things about charter schools is that they provide an outlet for passionate parents and committed educators to shoulder real responsibility for helping children learn. Yet passion and commitment can turn to frustration and resentment when things get tough. This Hauser Center case study of the Brooklyn-based Community Partnership Charter School is apposite. The protagonists were well-educated parents who germinated the idea and ultimately gave birth to the school; a local family foundation committed to helping provide "outstanding education to an underserved population"; hired school leaders and teachers; and the State University of New York (SUNY), which issued the charter in 2000. The founding parents sought to create a school that was "more progressive and child-centered" in its educational approach and "more economically and racially diverse" than those in the neighborhood. They also reached out to the Beginning with Children Foundation for support. An administrator was hired to "meld the Beginning with Children Foundation philosophy with that of the parents, and bring it all together to get a charter approved by SUNY." It quickly became clear, however, that the Foundation's need for accountability and desire to replicate a "proven model" conflicted with the progressive, "crunchy granola" approach of the parents. The differences seemed bridgeable at the start but less so as time passed; as the Foundation invested more money in the school, it sought more control and the parents felt more alienated. Stuck in the middle were the school's director and the teachers. In time, the teachers sought a "voice" on the school's board and even considered the need for a union. This story isn't over, but the case study - reminiscent of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan's celebrated Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding - makes sober reading for anyone with dreamy notions about starting new schools (or new anythings). The report is not available online, but if you're interested in tracking down a copy for yourself, email [email protected].

Three universities in Virginia are considering cutting some of their ties to the state as a way of easing regulations and mandates coming from Richmond. William and Mary, the University of Virginia, and Virginia Tech have all seen state aid plummet in recent years even as they chafe under what they consider to be onerous state regulation. The change in their status wouldn't make them private schools (they'd be called "Commonwealth-chartered") and their boards would still be appointed by the governor. But they would be freed from state accounting and personnel rules and able to raise tuition as they saw fit. Since Virginia Tech is the largest university in the state and UVa. and William and Mary two of the most prominent universities in the land, we doubt they will founder for lack of state aid. We say, let them go, and let the market - rather than a blend of artificially low tuition and needlessly intense regulation - drive enrollment at these marquee institutions.

"3 public universities try to ease Va.'s reins," by Amy Argetsinger, Washington Post, January 12, 2004

Much ado about No Child Left Behind this week. The National Education Association unveiled a slick, multi-million dollar public relations campaign, complete with radio and TV spots and backed by an NEA-commissioned poll that "reveals that the more voters learn about the real world impact of the two-year-old federal education law, the so-called 'No Child Left Behind' Act, the more they believe changes must be made." Unfortunately for the NEA, that assertion is undercut by reporting in USA Today, which actually read the polling data closely and concluded precisely the opposite: that, as voters hear more about NCLB, the more they like it. As an internal NEA memo obtained by USA Today notes, "Once our opponents have an opportunity to provide voters with their descriptions of the content of the law, swaying them becomes increasingly difficult." Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates continue to trumpet their opposition to NCLB on the campaign trail. Into all this sturm und drang wades Education Secretary Rod Paige, who this week leveled a potentially explosive charge - that districts are not accurately and honestly reporting whether students are making adequate yearly progress - and announced that no wholesale legislative fixes to NCLB are envisioned (through "regulatory" tweaks may be in order).

"Schools need more flexibility and funding to meet promise of "No Child Left Behind" law, NEA bipartisan poll shows," National Education Association press release, January 14, 2004

"Members speak out," NEA advertising campaign (Real Player required)

"Democrats attack school reforms at political peril," USA Today editorial, January 12, 2004

"Bush education critics jab ineffectively," by Chris Sheridan, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 11, 2004

"Failing schools underreported," by George Archibald, Washington Times, January 13, 2004

"Education act won't be open to change," by George Archibald, Washington Times, January 14, 2004

"Voters optimistic on public schools", by George Archibald, The Washington Times, Jan. 15, 2004, Page A5

Just before Christmas, the New York Times went off on a tear about "pork on the hill," grousing over the omnibus 2004 federal appropriations bill (which the Senate must still vote on this month) because of its 7,000 "special interest provisions," a.k.a. pork-barrel projects, totaling some $23 billion, twice the figure five years earlier.

Just how acute is this problem - if it's a problem - considering that even this sizable figure is just 2.8 percent of total government spending and 7 percent of "discretionary" dollars? Moreover, since even the Times recognizes that this practice has been going on from time immemorial and now reaches into every state and nearly every Congressional district, one can plausibly view it as taxpayers getting back bits of the money they send to Washington and spending it upon projects that hold particular interest for individual communities, but are too specialized to make it into nationwide federal programs. Thus, reports Times writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Congress is paying for ventures as disparate as an indoor rain forest in Iowa, a traffic light installation in Briarcliff Manor, New York, and a bus terminal in Nevada. It's hard to picture a formula-grant program that would accommodate such diverse projects and there's no reason to think the executive branch is any wiser than the legislative in meting out discretionary dollars. (The article is available for a small fee from the New York Times' online archives, at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70710F63E5B0C738EDDAB0994DB404482.)

Yet executive-branch agencies must administer these dollars and the task is spread across the entire government. The Department of Education's list of "pork" projects in 2004 consumes some 24 PAGES of Congressional-report language. At about 20 projects per page, that's nearly 500 separate undertakings. Some are tiny: $25,000 to the Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet for an "arts in education" program, $30,000 to New Avenues for Youth (Portland, OR) for "educational services to homeless youth." A bunch are middle sized, such as $400,000 for an education center in Samoa "to support the use and application of basic English and math skills" and half a million to the Pinal County schools in Arizona for "teacher quality improvements." A handful are sizable: $2 million each to the Alaska Department of Education and the Atlanta Boys and Girls Clubs; $3.5 million to an education technology program in New Orleans; $4 million to the estimable KIPP charter-school organization; and a couple of twenty-million-dollar whoppers to expand Project GRAD and to underwrite sundry improvements in low-performing Pennsylvania schools.

Coming in third, at ten million in 2004, is a continuation grant to the Education Leaders Council's "Following the Leaders" project, now operating in eleven states and hundreds of schools. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Hoover's CREDO were once subcontractors to evaluate this project (that relationship has ended), so I can't plead totally innocent to the charge of having held a scrap of education pork in my hand. But it's a decent project that may do some kids and teachers some good. (Let's hope it gets a proper evaluation so this can one day be known for sure.) And that seems generally to be the case with these hundreds of "earmark" projects insofar as one knows about them or can infer their gist from the brief descriptions in the appropriations report. They may or may not "succeed" but their prospects cannot be dimmer than those of Title I and other "formula" programs that, as myriad evaluations have shown, shovel out billions every year with no discernible impact on student achievement. At least the "pork" is going to places that want it for activities that they're keen to undertake, rather than being sent unbidden from Washington according to arcane formulae and intricate regulations.

It's in that context that one must read the November screed from People for the American Way (PFAW), charging the Education Department with channeling "more than $75 million" over three years to "a handful of private, pro-voucher advocacy groups." (See "Funding a Movement" at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_259.pdf.)

Even if that were true, at an average of $25 million per year spread across eight groups (using PFAW's dubious list), it's dwarfed by the hundreds of projects qualifying for Congressional earmarks. Within the $430 million appropriated to the "Fund for Improvement of Education" (once known as the "Secretary's Discretionary Fund"), by my rough calculation $245 million is intended for "authorized" programs (e.g. Star Schools, Parental Assistance Information Centers), leaving about $185 million for the education "pork" projects beloved of individual Congressmen and Senators.

Note that even the authorized programs contain such ideologically-freighted activities as WEEA ("Women's Educational Equity Act," $3 million) and such piggish, local-interest ventures as "exchanges with historic whaling and trading partners" ($8.5 million), which suddenly appeared in No Child Left Behind, evidently thanks to Senator Kennedy, and which purports to advance education exchange activities between Massachusetts and Alaska and Hawaii. (No doubt PFAW loves that one.)

PFAW's hit list includes the aforementioned Education Leaders Council project, which has absolutely nothing to do with vouchers. It includes the American Board for Certification of Teaching Excellence (on whose executive committee I serve), which is controversial in ed-school circles but, again, has absolutely nothing to do with vouchers - and is dwarfed by Congress's multi-year earmark for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, now totaling some $140 million since 1991. (In 2004, NBPTS gets $10 million, ABCTE $7 million. Though based on very different philosophies, both seek to improve teacher quality and credentialing, which just about everyone recognizes as an urgent thing to do.)

Two grants on the PFAW list do involve school choice, but both are for minority organizations (Black Alliance for Educational Options, the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options) to help carry out the public-school choice and supplemental services provisions of NCLB. In other words, these "discretionary" grants seek to promote a bipartisan Congressional policy that's about school choice but not vouchers. And two more grants, to nonprofit organizations that use the services of the online education company K12, chaired by Bill Bennett (and on whose board I serve), pay for after-school tutoring for minority kids in inner-city Philadelphia and for a "virtual" option for Arkansas students via a project run by that state's Department of Education.

In short, PFAW's "analysis" is ignorant muckraking and the New York Times version isn't much better. How do they think federal dollars OUGHT to be disbursed if by neither elected branch of government? More tax cuts, anyone?

Until last week, out-of-state and newly graduated teachers who wanted to work in North Carolina were required to pass a subject-area test to teach in that state's middle and high school classrooms. Last Thursday, however, faced with a worsening teacher shortage and pressure from legislators to alleviate it, the state board of education dropped the test in the hopes of recruiting more of out-of-state teachers. According to William Harrison, superintendent of schools in Cumberland County and chair of the committee that developed the new policy, "Teachers in Pennsylvania may not come to North Carolina if they find they have to jump through a few more hoops. [Dropping the test] will make our task a little less taxing." Ironically, state board leaders are using the oft-derided No Child Left Behind act as an excuse to lower state teaching standards. The highly-qualified teacher provisions of NCLB, they claim, give schools "an extra measure of quality control" to shield them from hiring poor teachers. Unfortunately, it seems more likely that this policy change will make it easier for less-than highly qualified teachers to fly under the NCLB radar. Why didn't North Carolina INSTEAD allow its own residents to become teachers simply by PASSING a subject-matter test rather than enduring the hoops of traditional teacher-training and certification?

"Hurdle removed for teachers," by Todd Silberman, News & Observer, January 9, 2004

A fascinating article from The Oregonian outlines one of the most troubling aspects of American education - the dramatic drop-off in pupil achievement from elementary to high school. The paper found that Oregon students, in disproportionate numbers compared to the rest of nation, flourish in early grades and then droop in the middle and high-school years, so much so that the state ranks 41st in college continuation rates. Among the possible culprits: large, impersonal high schools; low expectations; and sheer boredom. The article advances a number of familiar fixes, including smaller schools, but also hints that the system may need to be made over completely, dropping the one-size-fits-all, assembly line approach for one that classifies students by achievement level rather than chronological age.

"Schools squander gains," by Bill Graves, The Oregonian, January 11, 2004

If you've ever struggled to decipher a graphics-only IKEA instruction manual while putting together a large piece of furniture with the help of only a miniature wrench (and who hasn't?), you will be relieved to know that Northampton College in England has recently announced a new course: flat-pack furniture assembly 101. The problem, explains Helene Parker, the college's marketing manager, is that "men tend to do the whole caveman thing and rush in there without looking at the instructions." Parker goes on to explain that women, being more logical and rational, tend to "look at all the parts and check them off against the instructions before they try to assemble it." The three-hour course is free, and, according to an IKEA spokeswoman, it will "provide people with confidence and encourage them to do more home improvements rather than paying tradesmen."

"At last, a college course for all: How to build IKEA furniture," by Steve Bloomfield, The Independent, January 11, 2004

The Charter Schools Institute of the State University of New York (SUNY) has recommended that two of New York State's first three charter schools, which were opened five years ago under the state's 1998 charter law, should be granted only partial renewal because of mixed academic results, and that the third should be closed because, based on the "totality of evidence . . . the Institute has determined that the school is not an academic success, that it is not an effective, viable organization, and that its fiscal soundness is marginal." Unsurprisingly, David Ernst of the state School Boards Association, which is seeking a moratorium on charter schools in New York, exulted that this news "has to be discouraging to charter school advocates." Quite the contrary. The Charter Schools Institute is modeling the proper behavior of a conscientious charter-school sponsor. As Bill Phillips of the New York Charter Schools Association remarks, "These are good recommendations because you can see a clear link between academic performance and consequences. We've talked about accountability for five years now and this shows we mean it. . . . Ultimately, you have to earn the right to educate children." The SUNY board of trustees will vote January 27 to determine the ultimate fate of these three schools. They'll probably follow the Institute's advice. Would that more of America's hundreds of other charter sponsors were equally scrupulous and results-focused. Much of the press got this story wrong - they cannot or won't distinguish between good authorizing and bad schools. The right headline is this: "Only effective charter schools get to continue taking taxpayer dollars to educate children." Why isn't that the rule for 'regular' public schools, too?"

"None of N.Y.'s 1st three charter schools gets full renewal," by Michael Gormley, New York Newsday, January 12, 2004

"State: School sags, revoke its charter," by Joe Williams, New York Daily News, January 13, 2004

"Report faults New York's first 3 charter schools," by David Herszenhorn, New York Times, January 13, 2004 (registration required)

"School looks to the future with renewed mission," by Rick Karlin, Albany Times Union, January 14, 2003

"Charter School Authorizing:  Are States Making the Grade," by Louann Bierlein Palmer and Rebecca Gau, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Praeger Publishers
2003

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Minnesota's gutsy and embattled education commissioner, authored this superb new book, which expertly fingers - and analyzes and explains - two major perpetrators of the theft of excellence from American K-12 education over the past several decades: the "middle school movement" as it has evolved, and the education system's inattention-morphing-into-hostility toward the distinctive needs of gifted/talented youngsters, PARTICULARLY in the middle schools. As is normally the case, both problems began as well-meaning impulses. The middle school was an effort to do right by early-adolescent youngsters by placing them in educational environments that would be sensitive to their developmental and social needs and (in contrast to traditional junior high-schools) would focus on "teaching the child, not the subject." Neglect of giftedness arose from our obsession with equality, a concern that special treatment of uncommonly able kids is elitist, and the view that resources should be concentrated on youngsters who need to catch up rather than those who are already doing okay in school. As with so many good intentions, however, these went badly awry and turned into a profound anti-intellectualism that is undoubtedly a major cause both of the well-known fall-off in U.S. pupil achievement after fourth grade and of our spotty record in nurturing tomorrow's leaders, particularly those from less-than-privileged circumstances. (The well-to-do's capacity to purchase better schooling for their children includes myriad opportunities to hone and enrich the minds of uncommonly bright youngsters living in their homes.) You should definitely read this book, which can be termed a bargain (despite its hard-back price tag) because it tackles TWO big education problems while clearly showing the links between them. The ISBN is 0275981169 and more information can be found at www.waragainstexcellence.com.

Edited by Chris Patterson, Director of Research, Texas Public Policy Foundation
December 2003

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has compiled a set of papers offering solutions to the mess that comprises the current school financing system in the Lone Star State. With sky-rocketing property taxes, a court case attacking local tax redistribution, and the full attention of the state's legislature and governor, Texas's problems may be national news in 2004. Legislators are expected to come into special session to seek solutions. To frame such debates, this volume showcases a diverse set of authors, including nationally-known scholars such as Eric Hanushek and Caroline Hoxby and local players such as Catherine Clark from the Texas Association of School Boards and Harrison Keller from the Office of the Texas House Speaker. They argue for their own forms of reform, such as choice, revised spending policies, and dramatic tax reform. Much of the volume is quite specific to Texas, so outsiders will find it somewhat less useful. Yet anyone with a general interest in school funding can glean some insights. For example, John Merrifield of the University of Texas at San Antonio argues persuasively for the merits of a voucher-based system; Hoxby effectively shows that the "adequacy method," by which funding levels are based on the amount purportedly needed for adequate schooling, will simply emphasize the needs of interest groups over those of children; and Clark explains how other states have grappled with their own school funding controversies. The Foundation also provides a nice introduction, summarizing each paper, so readers can easily pick among the contents. To download the entire volume or individual chapters, visit http://www.texaspolicy.com/PTST/.

G. Gage Kingsbury, Allan Olson, John Cronin, Carl Hauser, and Ron Houser, Northwest Evaluation Association
January, 2004

This report is so interesting, we'll overlook the fact that it cribs the titles of two previous Fordham reports, in 1998 (http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=25) and 2000 (http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=24). This time, however, the title is somewhat misleading, since this report deals not with state academic standards but with the widely varying ways in which 14 states, mostly in the Pacific Northwest, calculate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The researchers developed a common measurement scale across these 14 states by giving at least 1,000 students in each grade a Northwest Evaluation Association-developed test alongside the state's official assessment. The study then compares where the state sets the "cut score" for its own assessment, which determines whether students are making AYP. As expected, cut scores are all over the map, meaning that students with roughly equal skill levels can be labeled failing or proficient depending on where they live. Other peculiarities abound: in Arizona, for example, the math proficiency level is set at the 46th percentile in the fourth grade but the 75th in the eighth grade, meaning that large numbers of students will be labeled proficient in elementary school and failing in middle school. The study falls short of making recommendations on how to fix these anomalies, but does suggest that this problem deserves fuller attention. We agree. Find it at http://www.young-roehr.com/nwea/.

James Tooley, Pauline Dixon, and James Stanfield, Adam Smith Institute
2003

This report from England aims to convince policymakers of the benefits of market-driven education reforms in improving student achievement and expanding educational opportunity for British students. The authors argue that the fundamental problem with British education "lies with the way education is delivered," and they propose "tried and tested" market approaches that stay true to the Department for Education Services' vision, "which values opportunity for all, and embraces diversity and autonomy as the means to achieve it." Among the alternatives highlighted in the paper: Sweden's system of universal vouchers; various European models of tax credits for private education; and America's own experiments with targeted vouchers, privately funded vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Some interesting tidbits highlighted in this report are the fact that England is one of only two European countries (Greece being the second) "that does not financially support private education" (though it did in former years), that Danish parents have a "Constitutional right to set up their own schools and receive state funding," and that German local governments "are required to ensure private schools' existence under constitutional entitlements." While much of the data included in this report has been presented elsewhere, this short white paper is an interesting read for anyone looking for a succinct review of parental choice programs from a cross-cultural perspective. Find it at http://www.adamsmith.org/policy/publications/pdf-files/delivering-better-edu.pdf.

Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University
September 2003

One of the great things about charter schools is that they provide an outlet for passionate parents and committed educators to shoulder real responsibility for helping children learn. Yet passion and commitment can turn to frustration and resentment when things get tough. This Hauser Center case study of the Brooklyn-based Community Partnership Charter School is apposite. The protagonists were well-educated parents who germinated the idea and ultimately gave birth to the school; a local family foundation committed to helping provide "outstanding education to an underserved population"; hired school leaders and teachers; and the State University of New York (SUNY), which issued the charter in 2000. The founding parents sought to create a school that was "more progressive and child-centered" in its educational approach and "more economically and racially diverse" than those in the neighborhood. They also reached out to the Beginning with Children Foundation for support. An administrator was hired to "meld the Beginning with Children Foundation philosophy with that of the parents, and bring it all together to get a charter approved by SUNY." It quickly became clear, however, that the Foundation's need for accountability and desire to replicate a "proven model" conflicted with the progressive, "crunchy granola" approach of the parents. The differences seemed bridgeable at the start but less so as time passed; as the Foundation invested more money in the school, it sought more control and the parents felt more alienated. Stuck in the middle were the school's director and the teachers. In time, the teachers sought a "voice" on the school's board and even considered the need for a union. This story isn't over, but the case study - reminiscent of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan's celebrated Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding - makes sober reading for anyone with dreamy notions about starting new schools (or new anythings). The report is not available online, but if you're interested in tracking down a copy for yourself, email [email protected].