The South Bend School Board Elections - analysis

Don Wheeler

In the background installment of this series, we explored local issues leading up to where we are now.  In part two, outside influences were explored.  Now I’ll attempt to tie these factors into the current race for school board trustee seats.

Three seats are contested this year:  The Adams High School District (District 1), the Riley High School District (District 2) and the Clay High School District (District 5).

As previously alluded to, this race features a slate of candidates sponsored by local Democratic Party regulars.  Since I hail from the Chicago area originally, I’ll use the term “machine” for convenience.  The machine candidates have been provided significant resources – both in terms of money and organization.  Should we worry about this?  Maybe.

If we think (and are given evidence) that the sponsoring organization has identified candidates who are clearly superior to their opponents and are beholden to no one, then this looks pretty good.  But one needs to consider the merits of both the sponsors and the candidates.  Clearly caveat emptor should apply.

The machine sponsored candidates are Jay Caponigro (Adams), John Stancati (Riley) and Michele Engle (Clay).  Caponigro has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, Mayor Leucke has sponsored at least one fund-raiser for Engle, and my wife and I recently received a letter from Roger Parent strongly endorsing Stancati.

It’s interesting that the Chamber only endorsed in one race.  (It was explained that endorsements must be unanimous.)  Even more interesting is the local NEA (our teachers’ union) has been silent.  The South Bend Tribune endorsed the machine slate recently – without offering much reason to agree with them.

There is certainly room for discussion about how much influence a city Mayor should have on a School Board and/or Superintendent.  Though it’s fashionable these days, the actual results are highly mixed.  Further complicating things, because the borders are different, many school corporation constituents aren’t eligible to vote in South Bend mayoral races – thus, the Mayor cannot be held to account by these folks.

Last July, Trustee Roger Parent had a Viewpoint article published in the Tribune entitled School trustee hopes to build on lessons of first 18 months which had to be viewed as a campaign piece.  That seemed curious, since he’s not up for election until 2012.  He indicated his purpose was to the outline the difficulties he’d encountered, identify what he felt he’d accomplished, and …?  Mostly he stated things nobody would disagree with while gently criticizing many oft heard points of view.  Political strategists would refer to this as “building value”.  If you view this July 2 piece, note the use of “I”, “I’ve”, etc., about a dozen and a half times - then do a word search for “we”.  Good luck on the latter.  In retrospect, it appears Parent wants to make this election about him and his allies.

So let’s do that.  As mentioned in an earlier installment, Parent raised and spent an unheard of amount of money for a non-paying Trustee position.  (Indications are machine candidate spending are at similar levels this time around).  Parent often made it clear that his campaign was a typical political race when it came to money – and seemed to exclude other considerations.  For example, when I complained that a local radio station was insisting on a $100 fee for attendance to what was being advertised as a candidates forum (a clear violation of equal time requirements), Parent’s take was that one had to spend money in campaigns.

Also mentioned previously, Parent was one of the few candidates to oppose the strategy of a deliberate search for a new Superintendent.  Robert Zimmerman had been dismissed – which had much of the citizenry in an uproar – but the naming of James Kapsa as Interim Superintendent had mollified many of these folks.  Now having the gift of some time, the School Board voted narrowly to do a conventional, nationwide search for a permanent Superintendent.   Outside funding was offered and under consideration.  At the time, no one knew whether Mr. Kapsa was interested in the permanent post – but I don’t think anyone thought he should not be eligible.

Parent was adamant that Kapsa should be named, which didn’t make any sense.  If Kapsa turned out to be the best choice after completing the search -and wanted the post - then fine.  But to not consider any candidates with actual track records before naming a permanent Superintendent seemed irresponsible at best.  A cynical person might wonder if Mr. Parent calculated Kapsa would feel beholden to him, if Parent engineered the appointment.  That’s not something any of us can know, obviously.

From the Parent Viewpoint:  “With the help of many people I was able to ‘encourage’ trustees to establish a New Tech high school.”  I like the use of quotations on 'encourage'.  It shows honesty.

The Trustees had been considering a New Tech program for years.  Current and prior Board members had visited operating programs, worked on many proposals and locations for a SBCSC program – but securing funding AND a solid concept simultaneously had eluded them.  Still, the general sentiment was to keep trying.

As agreement by a narrow majority of Board members seemed imminent, word has it Mr. Parent lost patience.  It was at that point he revealed his intention to “go it alone” (with backers) on a charter school based on the program.  This was enough, reportedly, to turn one Trustee’s vote from yes to no.  By this account at least, New Tech was delayed by Mr. Parent’s actions – rather than achieved.  Many would argue it was implemented in spite of him.

I want to stress that I believe Mr. Parent has good intentions.  But I have concerns, obviously.

The next installment will address the current races, and the folks in them.

IN State Education Dept. needs to address its own deficiencies

Don Wheeler

I was heartened to read the editorial of the South Bend Tribune July 25, which declared "Early start is key to children's school success." Two years ago, as a candidate for South Bend Community School Corp. Board of Trustees, conversations with neighbors made it clear to me that almost no one knew that kindergarten is optional in Indiana. It was only a slightly smaller group that was aware the state didn't fully fund all-day classes for kindergartners.

Here's how my wife and I found out. After narrowing our options for our daughter's kindergarten year, we met with the Hay Primary Center principal. We wanted our daughter to be in a full-day class and asked him about the possibility.

He smiled a bit wistfully and said, "Any time I'm having a conversation like this with both a mother and father, I can be sure their child will not be in a full-day class." That's because full-day classes were either at magnet schools, which Hay was not, or were U.S. government-funded Title I programs. The principal had correctly assessed that our daughter was not a Title 1 student. Undaunted, we enrolled her there in afternoon-only kindergarten, and have not regretted it ever.

Thanks to the decision by the SBCSC board, principals won't have to say that anymore. But it should have been the state's responsibility to have made that happen. Other school systems unwilling or unable to do what SBCSC did still are still shortchanging their kindergartners.

The editors correctly point out that students can enter formal education as late as age 7 in Indiana. Our daughter turned 7 in March and was evaluated as having the reading skills of a beginning fifth-grader. She was one of four children in her 20-student first grade class judged to have achieved that level of competency. What's the likely outcome for kids just entering our school system at that age?

The National Institute of Early Education Research (of Rutgers University) exists to track what works and doesn't work in the effort to get our children off to good starts. Many states have had available state-sponsored preschool programs for quite some time — some over 10 years. NIEER's research shows that — particularly for children from challenging situations — early structure and nourishment of their innate curiosity pays big dividends.

Our child has many advantages. One of them was two years of private pre-school taught by professionals. Am I completely nuts to think that all kids should have access to resources like that?

Sadly, what I see from our state government is posturing and fingerpointing. In some ways this isn't new — I've seen little progress on this front in my 20 years as a resident. On the other hand, people who haven't done anything to improve conditions, yet who are imposing themselves as "the solution," strike me as throwing an anchor to a drowning person.

We have plenty of our own work to do locally. There's no doubt of that. Were we to have a real partner at the state level, they might realize the same holds true for them.

Early start is key to children's school success

The Editors
South Bend Tribune

It's not surprising that Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett has focused little attention on expanding early childhood education in his mission to increase achievement in Indiana schools.

The General Assembly, after all, is not likely to support adding expense for full-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten in this troubled economy.

About 30 percent of Indiana kinder-gartners still attend kindergarten half days. And fewer than 20 percent of pre-kindergartners are enrolled in pre-school.


It all makes for a tremendous disparity among first-graders. Children who've had no formal lessons, who've not learned numbers or colors at home or been read to by parents enter the classroom alongside children with years of preschool under their belts, and parents who have exposed them to museums and travel.

Failing to level the playing field means some students will forever have been cheated out of a solid foundation on which to build a lifetime of successful education.

The solution is to mandate kindergarten for every child now, and to fully invest in full-day kindergarten and pre-school programs as soon as the state budget allows.

The governor, Bennett and early childhood experts from around the state should be teaming up to convince legislators that investing more heavily in early childhood education is smart.

Bennett has said that he doesn't think pre-school is a cure for what's ailing the state's K-12 schools — though he's a proponent.

He supports full-day kindergarten, too, as evidenced by the Department of Education's website. It lists eight benefits of full-day programs, including significantly greater progress in literacy, math, general learning and social skills.

Because of such benefits, South Bend Community Schools made the transition to a full-day program for all its kindergartners last year. The state pays schools the same tuition for kindergartners, regardless of whether they're taught for a full or half day. But school systems receive an additional $1,000 grant for each full-day kindergartner.

It isn't enough to encourage some schools to make the switch even though credible studies say full-day kindergarten significantly improves outcomes in the early grades.

And clearly, the status quo isn't good enough. IDOE earlier this year reported that 24 percent of Indiana third-graders were moving to fourth grade without demonstrating minimal proficiency in state English and language testing.

In response, the General Assembly charged Bennett with developing reading standards that every third-grader must meet before being promoted.

Increasing school accountability and raising expectations for student success are essential. We've argued in the past, however, that we believe providing more support for children as they begin their school career is preferable to rebuilding from failure.

Most children now enrolled in Indiana's federally funded pre-kindergarten classes have special physical or developmental challenges. Many more Hoosier pre-schoolers need and deserve this preparation.

Every child should be required to attend kindergarten.

And to us, universal full-day kindergarten plus pre-school adds up to a sure-fire formula for boosting student success.

Make grades meaningful

The Editors
South Bend Tribune

Dislike for a plan to label schools with single letter grades should not be mistaken for dislike of clarity and accountability. We hope Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett realizes that.

Bennett is right to defend clarity and accountability. We join him in doing so. Where we disagree with the superintendent is in how he would report success and failure in schools.

For the purposes of this discussion, schools aren't buildings. They are people: children, teachers and administrators. All perform at different levels and with varying degrees of competency. Students are graded for their work. Bennett thinks teachers and administrators should be graded, too, and that their grade should take the form of a letter, A through F, that reflects the performance of their students. The letter would be applied to the school.

While we have no objection to grading educators, to label a school with a single symbol of success or failure is wrong. Simple though the idea is, it doesn't even merit points for clarity. That's because a single letter grade, based on student ISTEP scores, is too general to impart much useful information.

We hope the Indiana State Board of Education listened carefully to Mishawaka school board President Larry Stillson on June 16. He was one of two people representing the Indiana School Boards Association to the state board. Stillson was there not only to tell the trustees what's wrong with Bennett's plan, but to offer a better idea.

The school board president proposes that schools receive multiple grades in several areas, rather than be painted with a single broad ISTEP-based stroke. Not only would that impart useful information to anyone honestly trying to understand a school's strengths and weaknesses, but it would spare schools (and communities) glaring, hurtful and mostly meaningless labels.

If the state board is bent on finding a simple answer, it might not like Stillson's idea. To devise a plan for grading schools on a broad spectrum could be complicated. It would take some effort. But it would be effort well spent, not effort that would do more harm than good.

My comment:

Today's editorial is right on the mark. Tony Bennett's tenure has been characterized by shifting all responsibility away from his department and by making extremely complicated problems appear to have simple solutions.

I also appreciate the Tribune pointing out someone with a viable (in this case, better) alternative. We should all be prepared to do so when opposing a proposal or action. But it's good to notice when people actually do it. Hopefully, it will encourage them to continue doing so.

A tip of my cap to Ann Rosen

My decision to run for school board significantly predated the dismissal of Robert Zimmerman as Superintendent of Schools. That decision; however, certainly broadened the field of candidates. It also stirred a hornet's nest of public indignation.

I've looked into this matter about as deeply as one can - who wasn't directly involved - and I can't say with any certainty whether that decision was proper. I will once again say, though, that the School Board gave the community little cause to have confidence in their decision.

That result caused a level of outrage which seemed to overwhelm sober reflection for a lot of people. This "throw the bums out" mentality made campaigns seriously challenging for two incumbents - Kim Barnbrook and Ann Rosen, and they each reacted in very different ways.

Ms. Barnbrook maintained a low profile and didn't appear at any of the sponsored events I attended. Ms. Rosen, on the other hand, was at most of them, sought endorsements and ran a very active campaign. Picture someone power walking upstream, making steady progress.

On top of that, Ms. Rosen's presence at these events was quite valuable in and of itself. Several times she gently reminded everyone of the boring, mechanical, yet critical aspects which burn up time and resources for the school corporation and its leadership. She didn't try to discourage anyone from vision strategy, but I think she knew from her own experience that it could be quite discouraging for someone unfamiliar with the day to day drudgery involved in just making the machine run.

In fact, Ms. Rosen had and has a vision of her own. And thanks to Joe Dits and the South Bend Tribune more people know about it:

SOUTH BEND -- As the minutes closed on her last school board meeting last week, Ann Rosen spoke of "the elephant in the room that we don't talk about."

Over several years, she said, the students of the South Bend Community School Corp. have changed. More of them are poorer and are minorities. As a result, the needs of students have changed. The schools must do a good job of educating both the kids with these needs and the kids who excel, said Rosen, whose term on the board is ending.

Rosen pointed to research from 1998 that found that children in welfare families heard one-half to one-third as many spoken words as children in more affluent households. And the kids' vocabulary reflected that.

"This language gap deeply affects children's ability to read," said Rosen, a consultant with a local group called the Family Connection.

Indeed, numbers from the Indiana Department of Education show that minorities have grown steadily in the school corporation since 1990, from 35 percent of the student body to 59 percent. During the same time, minorities grew from almost 14 percent of students across Indiana to 24 percent.

Hispanic youth grew from 7 percent of the school corporation's student body to 15.5 percent.

And the percent of South Bend students on free lunch programs has grown from 42 percent in 1996 to a high of 58 percent this year -- while students with reduced-price lunches have gone from 6.5 percent to a high of 10 percent in that time, according to the DOE.

"If I had one wish for the community," Rosen said, "it's that it would invest in quality early childhood education." She said James Heckman, a Nobel Laureate economist at the University of Chicago, argues that it's wise for communities to invest in good early childhood education to ward off social problems.

I think somebody else has been talking about sort of thing. Hmm...

The editors of the South Bend Tribune put it very nicely:

Outgoing South Bend Community School Corp. Trustee Ann Rosen called the growing privilege gap among students "the elephant in the room that we don't talk about."

It should be a subject South Bend trustees talk about again and again. Nothing is more important. That is because the number of schoolchildren living in impoverished households is growing steadily. So is the number of minority children and the number of children whose first language isn't English.

Rosen's point, that it is important for school systems to invest in quality early childhood education in order to close the education gap, has not gotten nearly enough of the current school board's attention. Much of the board's time has been spent debating the merits of contracts — for buildings, buses or superintendents — instead of talking about kids' educational needs.

We hope that will change, and that those with knowledge of this serious issue — including Rosen — will make themselves heard. As Rosen noted before leaving the trustee stage for the last time, minorities in the South Bend schools have grown from 35 percent to 59 percent since 1990. And just since 1996, the proportion of students receiving free lunches has grown from 42 percent to 58 percent. Poverty is by far the biggest factor in students' failure to learn.

A Dec. 21 interview with Superintendent James Kapsa by Tribune staff writer Alicia Gallegos also touched on the impact that poverty has on achievement. That, in Kapsa's words, is something "we need to keep in mind on a daily basis."

Whether this will be a successful community — with crime under control, a pool of skilled workers able to meet the needs of professional and industrial employers, and a generally high quality of life — will depend
very much on how well public education meets the challenges facing it. We are glad Rosen mentioned that fact and hope it will get much more than a mention in the months and years ahead.

Had I known of Ms. Rosen's quality earlier (and thought it would do her any good), I may well have decided to leave the race and publicly endorse her. That ship has sailed.

I salute her hard work, her gentle, determined nature - and hope to be able to work with her in the future on these issues we both feel so strongly about.

Crossposted from Progressives, South Bend