Lord knows that kind of rigor and commitment will change the community also. This will have to be a gift of first things first from the community to the schools. The only excess cash in the community at this point is in the businesses. Can you get them to invest in the 100% delivery of at risk kids to be ready? Call it economic development and reach for the funds in the 2004 job Creation Act.

At least this approach has us working together on something that is absolute and not so relative.

I read your article with interest. I’ve been an educator on the front line serving as a technology coordinator at the school level since our district initially began technology in the schools. I truly believe in its use as a learning tool and have witnessed firsthand students benefiting from its use.

The National Educational Technology Standards are what we need to focus on. You mention improved data to drive instruction and research-based methods. That is great; however, the model we are using for instruction is based on an over 100 year old mentality that reading is the sacred cow. Many states have in word adopted these NETS standards but in reality most students use computers only for drill – classroom management devices functioning in a way that research has proven ineffective and just keeping the students busy while the teacher works with a group. Where are the student projects that these same standards require from students? In most schools it isn’t happening; therefore, technology is not helping instruction.

Reading is important but consider that many years ago is was the only way knowledge was gained aside from apprenticships. Even the most ignorant statistician knows that half of all people who take a norm-referenced test will score below average and that 10 percent never will master the tested skill. When students have trouble reading we should take every opportunity to help them but not force them if it does not work for them. Consider our drop outs. Most are/were classified as Learning disabled mostly in Reading. School represents the defeated zone. We should encourage reading but only to a point then we must value the student and focus on the content. Perhaps instead of reading about whales we will allow this student to watch about whales. We will then find out what he learned about whales. We do this in sports and in every other area of life. Find what we are good at and work at it. Many jobs do not require high reading ability. The emphasis is overboard.

The problem is that we are not addressing the right thing. Teachers and students on the front lines are being squashed in the assessments all based on sameness – same test, same lesson, same book cookie cutter thought when we are different. Students are different and we must realize this will appear in reality as well as test results. We have multiple methods today to learn with and technology offers a rich opportunity for our kids. An overemphasis on process instead of content and the heart and mind of our children will only spell disaster in the long run.

Please, please, if you haven’t picked up a copy of the current Lapham’s Quarterly, do it NOW. Lewis Lapham’s description of his inspiration by teachers is wonderful and telling.

The idea that “some states take their education more seriously than others,” or “the US Department of Education cannot simply go into a State and tell them what to do,” is so far removed from reality it is beyond the pale. Yet that apparently is the attitude of the Wireline Competition Bureau at the FCC. Perhaps the applicant community should simply send all their “draft” technology plans to the FCC for approval. Now that would be interesting.

Please, please bring just a glimmer of common sense back into the program and allow tech plans, approved by the States, be the final word in technology planning. Unless of course, the Department has already abdicated its sole responsibility of creating and protecting education policy for all the children in all the communities throughout the country.

Margaret Spellings and the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit set accreditation standards back, as they backed a fraudulent degree in an attempt to keep accreditors out of court.

In Jan 2008, the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit (AAEU) started in on complaints against the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). During the investigation it was determined that both accreditors had not correctly handled complaints filed by Randy Chapel and his mother Carol Nye-Wilson against Western Seminary in violation of 34 CFR 602.23, as well as both having issues with 34 CFR 602.20 and 602.22. A Press Release was sent out on the 25th June covering these actions and can be found at http://www.educationalfraud.com

While Chapel and Nye-Wilson sent various documents in support of their claims of fraud, and inducement to Margaret Spellings, Kent Talbert General Counsel, and others, the new AAEU department director Nancy C. Regan claimed that the accreditors had done nothing wrong.

This was rather odd given what the AAEU knew and had in its’ possession, custody and control at the time.

Donne M. Wittman, writing on behalf of the San Francisco-Seattle Case Participation Team, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education (March 25, 2008) and Linda Henderson, Area Case Director for the Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education (Sept 4, 2008) concluded that: “The program in which your son [Randy Chapel] was enrolled in was in California.” The program was deemed to be 100% different than the program offered, accredited and approved in Portland, Oregon.

Western Seminary is not approved to enroll or offer to a student a Master of Theology degree program or course work in whole or in part in the State of California as previously known to the AAEU as reported by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. Period. There are no exceptions to this.

In the above letters noted to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein by the FSA department, the FSA made reference to the 25th June Press Release statements, which noted that the school knew beforehand it could “not guarantee a ThM [Master of Theology] program that meets ATS Standards” and such a “degree may not be credible.” Further the judge ruled unsympathetically over the clumsy argument for “actual pursuit” of the degree does not equate to approval, and that the school subsequently asserted that the substantively changed Th.M. degree program is one and the same as the previously approved, standard Th.M. degree program listed for many years in school catalogs, handbooks, and public online advertisements and mailings.

The investigators at the Federal Student Aid department did not buy into Western’s or ATS’ accreditation schemes, made solely to counter the fraud case against the school.

In Regan’s letters however, she claims that ATS/NWCCU are in compliance with 34 CFR 602.20 and 602.22 in order to cover for the accreditors, who are in turn covering for the school.

In reviewing ATS published materials made available to the public and materials in legal files no substantive change policies of ATS (34 CFR 602.22) as regulated by the AAEU existed on March 14, 2006. There were no published policy for exceptions to substantive change policies of ATS (34 CFR 602.22) as regulated by the AAEU and existed on March 14, 2006. In fact, no documents directly or indirectly supported the notion that ATS had substantive change policies and exceptions to those policies and were provided to Chapel’s previous attorney Bill Dresser or to Chapel or his parents prior to March 14, 2006. Of interest, Regan failed to quote and include the actual regulated substantive change policies as SHE CLAIMED they existed on March 14, 2006 as well as the finding letters she claimed supported the AAEU’s position.

Ironically, Western Seminary had previously admitted that no documents exist that reflect, evidence, discuss, describe or concern accreditation or approval by the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) for Western Seminary to provide the ThM in the State of California or in Oregon as of March 14, 2006. Western admitted that there are no documents that remotely “reflect, evidence, discuss, describe, refer to, or concern the Association of Theological Schools’ approval for Western Seminary to provide a Master of Theology degree as prescribed in the settlement agreement for Chapel v. Western Seminary, et al, Santa Clara Superior Court action 1-03-CV-814749 as of March 14, 2006.”

As previously known to the AAEU, Western knew at the time, it could not guarantee the program, even though the school clearly agreed they would not rely upon representations found outside the agreement as quoted: “…agreement is made without reliance upon any inducement, statement, promise, or representation other than those contained within this Agreement.” Western Seminary even claimed at the time it “represents and warrants” that “it has the authority to act” and “to bind itself …it to the terms of this Agreement…”

Spellings, Talbert, Regan and the AAEU all had various materials and knew of the scheme to defraud the student and his family by ATS and Western Seminary, by claiming non-written, non-public, and non-regulated policies that the school claimed under penalty of perjury “never existed”, trumped written, public, and regulated writings.

AAEU investigator Chuck Mula stated on July 21, 2008:

“It would be very difficult for a recognized accrediting agency to justify to the Department the existence of two approval process for degree programs. One published and One unpublished. The Department would be very interested in seeing that policy and have the agency explain how the agency applies it. If an accredited institution does not follow a recognized accrediting agency’s published policies for requesting the review and approval of a degree program or the substantive change of a degree program to include its delivery system, than the institution would be out of compliance with the agency’s published policies and procedures. Therefore the Department would expect that the program would not be approved.”

Regan, who replaced Carol Griffiths as director, instead of citing the more than obvious evidence chose instead to conceal, falsify, cover up these materials facts and relied upon false, fictitious, fraudulent statements by ATS and Western who made representations in false writings known by the AAEU to be materially false, fictitious and/or fraudulent.

Federal employees can be imprisoned for not more than 5 years for acts such as this.

John Hannon, one of the attorneys handling the case for Chapel and his parents, wrote to Spellings and Regan. He stated, “The DOE is mandated by law to enforce 34 CFR 602. Here, your department appears to have abandoned its own policies in regard to maintaining standards and requirements related to the accrediting agencies as well as to assure that those standards are enforced. Such failure to act would seem to assure that accrediting agencies have no enforceable standards that are subject to review by your department making the legacy of the Spelling Administration one which supported academic fraud.” Hannon added, “so long as NWCCU and ATS do not have any problems with a degree program based on academic fraud, your department will not act… making the DOE party to known fraud.”

Undeterred Sam Phillips writing on behalf of Western Seminary, Gary Tuck, Lynn Ruark and Steve Korch stated, “we fail to see how repeated correspondence from Western Seminary which specifically outlines Randy Chapel’s ‘straight forward path to finish the ThM program’” supports any contention that the Defendants had no intention to fully perform their obligations.

Western Seminary is more than happy to knowingly administer a fraudulent degree with ATS, NWCCU and the AAEU scheming along side them.

David Thurman Supervisor for Academic Standing at The Southern Baptist Theology Seminary, an ATS member school, reflected on the contracted Master of Theology program: “From the description you provided, indicating that these were correspondence courses, it is highly unlikely we would transfer any of them into our ThM program and probably nothing would transfer into the PhD.”

While others understand the degree is fraud, Spellings, Regan, scheming with ATS, NWCCU and Western have justified two accreditors and a school to offer a degree, which is fraudulent and nothing more than a diploma mill valuation of a degree.

Hannon, writing to Spellings and Regan stated: “It appears that your letter of September 29, 2008, simply restates the predetermined position as referred by Chuck Mula and made via email dated July 29, 2008, wherein it was stated that “the Department will not support any civil actions against NWCCU regarding your complaint” and by extension ATS. The questionable determination of September 29 reflects this point and is a possible conflict of interest as previously expressed by Mr. Mula. My clients feel that the determination of your office to take no action is simply an effort to justify the pre-determined goals set out months previously and referred to in writing, without taking into account various known facts that have been obviously concealed, covered up, falsely represented, in which is based on false writing(s) known to previously contain materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and used knowingly by a Federal employee and with the knowledge of the Honorable Margaret Spellings.”

Requests for information to the AAEU department by congressional and house subcommittee on education member Mazie Hirono has not been provided.

Chapel’s many requests for public and other documents have not been provided.

Phone and email messages to AAEU staff have not been returned.

Process is now underway to serve Spellings and Regan and force them to explain under oath their actions.

Other congressional members are in the process of seeking answers.

“It is one thing for Spellings to rant on about accountability and transparency in her department, it is flat out hypocritical of her to pull a stunt like this on a student and his family to save off civil actions on Sandra Elman/NWCCU and ATS” said Chapel. “Regan should be fired and as for Kent Talbert, Spellings’ General Counsel, what the hell is he thinking letting Regan’s letter go out?”

Contacts:
Honorable Margaret Spellings: Phone:202/401-3000 email: Margaret.Spellings@ed.gov
Kent Talbert, esq: Phone:202/401-6000 email:Kent.Talbert@ed.gov
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, phone: 415/393-0707
Congresswoman Mazie K. Hirono, Phone: 808/541-1986
Nancy C. Regan, Phone: 202/219-7018, email: Nancy.Regan@ed.gov

Representation for ATS, Daniel Aleshire, Charles Willard and Jeremiah Mccarthy
Tom Johnson
Henry W. Oliver Bldg, 535 Smithfield Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222-2312
Phone: 412.355.6488
Tom.Johnson@klgates.com

Representation for NWCCU and Sandra Elman
Michael Madden
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1900, Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.622.5511
mmadden@bbllaw.com

One of the attorneys representing Randy Chapel, Carol Nye-Wilson, and Dale Wilson
John P. Hannon II
716 Capitola Avenue, Suite F, Capitola, CA 95010
Phone: 831.476.8005
jph3002@yahoo.com

On the web:

http://www.educationalfraud.com

You and me both.

Eighteen months of “conversations,” and not one parent made the cut.

No taxpayers, either.

…………………

I’ve been a fan of Ms. Spellings. It’s distressing to see her suddenly touting “technology” at the end of her years as Secretary of Education.