mr. mayer, thank you for your words -- mr. mayor, thank you for your words. in 2008, this community made a very bold statement, and the ripple effect went across the country. we are not going to stand for the same old thing. the status quo is not good enough. as long as we have an achievement gap -- our educational system, if it is not good enough for those achieving at the lowest end, it is not good enough for anyone. it was a very inspirational, very aspirational stake in the ground that said we are not going to do things the same old way. i am proud to say to you that from the aspiration, we have gotten to the nuts and bolts. one of the things i want to talk about is how we have seen this kind of growth over the last five years continuing to put us on the trajectory to close and eliminate achievement gaps. it is simple when you think about it. it is engaging our parents to understand not only what schooling is about but what their role is in the process. if we fundamentally believe -- which we do -- that the most critical element of any school improvement

i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania and united states attorney, mr mayer. >> thank you for yours important area. i want to follow up -- that is what i am trying to comprehend. how will look at distinguishing where the association is being created among people who are finding each other to share some sort of growing prislam versus those who are affiliating into a culture. is it distinguishable? >> i think it is distinguishable. one thing that would help is if the corrections department as a whole reported the data for a change of religion. we talk about the percentage of inmates who are muslim or catholic or jewish but how many change religion two or three times and period of incarceration and why? why do we have an individual who has been in prison three times. >> you touched on this earlier. the qualification of those who are teachers of the faith and given access to materials and other things in the prison. is there any kind of standard by which it is appropriate for legitimate for the government to determine who should be the shepherd of a flock? >> the government has the rig