TIME TO TALK EDUCATION

With the media beginning to hold forums, and with the Obama administration’s attention to a reform movement called “Race to the Top”, it’s time to turn our attention to one of the most critical public issues that we as a democratic society must face squarely with all the vigor and thoughtful debate that we can muster.  I speak, of course, of an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as informed citizens of a democratic republic: public education.

But we need to start much further back than many politicians or proponents of change and reform seem willing to go.  In my humble opinion, the question of education reform should NOT start with whether the legislation that goes by the laughable nickname of “No Child Left Behind” needs to be amended or discarded, or kept intact.  We need to get much more basic about this particular reform movement. 

We are in deep trouble as to our standing in the education arena.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranked as follows in 2003 in several areas of education:

The U.S. ranks 18th in reading
Finland ranked first, with an average score of 543.

The U.S. ranks 6th in college students aged 20-24 
Slovenia ranks first, with 46.1% of all 20 to 24 year old residents enrolled in college.

The U.S. ranks 28th in three year old students
Belgium ranks first, with 99.6% of all three year old children enrolled in school.

The U.S. ranks 4th in money spent per student on secondary education
Luxembourg ranks first, at $18,144.

The U.S. ranks 8th in expenditure on education
Mexico ranks first with 15.1%.

The U.S. ranks 12th in college faculty to student ratio
Sweden ranks first, with 114.2 teaching staff for every 1,000 college students.

CBS News had some interesting comments on these rankings:

“(AP) The United States is losing ground in education, as peers across the globe zoom by with bigger gains in student achievement and school graduations, a study shows.
Among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree.
By both measures, the United States was first in the world as recently as 20 years ago, said Barry McGaw, director of education for the Paris-based Organization for Cooperation  and Development,  said that the United States remains atop the ‘knowledge economy,’ one that uses information to produce economic benefits. But, he said, ‘education's contribution to that economy is weakening, and you ought to be worrying.’
The report bases its conclusions about achievement mainly on international test scores, and top performers included Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium.
Given what the United States spends on education, its relatively low student achievement through high school shows its school system is ‘clearly inefficient,’ McGaw said.
In all levels of education, the United States spends $11,152 per student. That's the second highest amount, behind the $11,334 spent by Switzerland.
The very best schools in the U.S. are extraordinary,‘ McGaw said.
‘But the big concern in the U.S. is the diversity of quality of institutions — and the fact that expectations haven't been set high enough’.”

John Stoessel of ABC News gave us this more recent assessment in January, 2006:

“A recent Gallup Poll survey showed 76 percent of Americans were completely or somewhat satisfied with their kids' public school.  Education reformers like Kevin Chavous have a message for these parents: If you only knew.
Even though people in the suburbs might think their schools are great, Chavous says, ‘They're not. That's the thing and the test scores show that.’
Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.
And while many people say, ‘We need to spend more money on our schools,’ there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
Jay Greene, author of ‘Education Myths,’ points out that ‘If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better.’
He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey. We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America.
Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them ‘stupid.’

Lov Patel, the boy who got the highest score among the American students, told me, ‘I'm shocked, because it just shows how advanced they are compared to us.’
The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said,  ‘Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom‘.”

It is not an exaggeration to say, then, that the news about our education system is not good, and is getting worse.  To throw more money at the problems – and call that “reform” - without a thorough analysis and debate would be in some sense a criminal act.

So, where do we begin?  In my opinion, we must decide what the national PURPOSE of public education is in our Country.  I challenge you to try to find any such statement that exists as an overarching statement at this moment.  There is a purpose statement for the Department of Education, but that’s different.  To what end do we have public education?  Why have public education at all?  What reason or reasons are behind our immense system of education in this country?  How can we know what our system requires if we don’t even know why we have it in the first place?

It would help to know what other countries say as to the purpose of their educational systems, especially in those countries that lead in certain categories of comparison.  We also need to hold regional conferences all over this country to give ordinary citizens, teachers, pupils, parents, administrators, etc., an opportunity to develop PURPOSE statements that might be used to feed into a national (White House?) conference which could perhaps develop a national Statement of Purpose, a Mission Statement, plus a set of goals and objectives that could lead us to a real reform of the current system.

Yes, this would take time -- a fair amount of time -- but it’s been done before, particularly as preparation for the White House Conference on Aging held in 1981, and it worked!  Yes, it took a better part of a year to hold all the regional Conferences, but the results were solid, and produced some important recommendations and subsequent legislative enactments that are still benefiting senior citizens. 

We have a choice: keep going along as we are (holding to the status quo in education); throwing money down a dark hole, not knowing for what reason or purpose we are spending that money, and all the time losing the global race to have the best educated citizenry;
OR: we can act deliberatively and deliberately to bring about real reform by deciding, first of all, why we have public education; what it’s outcomes are meant to be; what goals we need to set; what objectives and actions we need to fund to accomplish our educational Purpose and our Mission, and to meet the goals that have been set.

ARE YOU ANGRY ENOUGH TO FORGET WHAT’S IMPORTANT?

Apparently, there is a lot of anger abounding out there.

*  Some are angry about unemployment
*  Some are angry about housing foreclosures
*  Some are angry about government size
*  Some are angry about deficit spending
*  Some are angry about illegal immigration
*  Some are angry about government intervention
*  Many are angry about political party dithering
*  Many are angry about the failures of institutions - both public and private
*  Many are angry at Wall Street and BP
*  Many are angry about government’s inability to solve societal problems and needs:  jobs, poverty, better education, dependence on oil, climate change, etc.

There is nothing wrong with anger in itself.  It is a valid emotion.  What really matters is how we use our anger.  Anger can be the path to destruction, or a stimulus to newness, or something that ends up creating immobilization and inability to act.

Just how angry are you?  Angry enough to jettison all reason, to do something stupid just to make a point, or to get back at the “powers that be”, or to “throw the bums out.”   It’s time to address this question because soon it will be time for elections, and elections are a mechanism for expressing opinions, and needs, and desires.  However, just expressing anger through one’s vote is probably not very useful.  Think about it. 

For instance, are you angry enough to throw out all incumbents?  The real question is: what do you get in their place?  Unfortunately, you immediately get another incumbent!  Someone who may be more power-hungry, greedy, and unresponsive than the last “incumbent”. To vote against someone is not as responsible as voting for someone who demonstrates an ability to make a difference in your life and the life of your community.  We must, above all, take the measure of the abilities of each candidate, and not simply be led to vote for anyone out of anger - yours or theirs.  We must question their views and not just accept slogans and “talking points” and negative campaign techniques.  What does each candidate offer in depth toward the solutions to the problems that affect you the most?  Voting for what you think they might do once in office cannot substitute for making them indicate clearly what they want to do, expect to do, and know that they can do. 

Are you angry enough to vote simply to throw out a particular Party in order to balance and check the power of another party? It rarely works, but often leads to worse inaction and gridlock.  One of the things you must know in order to vote responsibly is to what principles are candidates committed because of their Party affiliation?!!  Why?  Because once in office, those same candidates who ran “against Washington” or “against Albany” or “against the establishment”, are going to become an integral part of that establishment, and their Party leaders will not only be expecting them to adhere to party ideology and principles, but to vote the Party line more often than not. 

The concept of the political “maverick” is pretty much a myth.  John McCain is proving it right now, Scott Brown is not doing much better, and the newly elected Governor of Virginia already has his problems because he expressed some negative aspects of his party’s views.   Politicians have declared their “independence” at times, but remain “team players” even though they may not always vote with their Party.   Watch out when you vote for Party mavericks or independents-- you will get outcomes that you didn’t expect because they will mainly uphold their Party’s principles once in office.  Therefore, be sure of the “brand” for which you are voting:  will they pretty much support Wall Street and breaks for Big Business, or for the Middle class and Labor Union issues?  Will they be supporting privatization of government programs, or programs under government control and administration?  Will they support tax cuts for the richest members of society, or targeted tax cuts and incentives for the middle class?  Will they favor private entities to solve societal problems like poverty or need for jobs, or will they favor government programs to do that?  Will they support war as a major way of solving problems with other nations, or support other less bellicose means like negotiations and alliances?  Check the “brand” carefully before voting. 

And finally, be careful to know who is supporting each candidate.  Where is their financing coming from?  To whom are they beholden?  Who wants their ear for their own ends and not yours?  Who has supported their third party ads?  These are sometimes the most telling questions because the answers are very revealing as to what they will do as office-holders, and whose “agenda” they will support once in office.  Campaign financing is often the “dirty little secret” that tells an unwelcome truth about a candidate: for whom she or he may be the mouthpiece, the puppet, the surrogate.

So, tune out the rhetoric; forget the negative ads; eschew the empty slogans, and use your anger in a constructive way.  Examine the “brand” (party ideology) represented by each candidate; find out what changes they will support in office; make sure to discover who gives them financial support.  Then vote responsibly! 

Meeting Expectations

 

Some people just can’t help themselves.  Richard Hanna is one of them.  He is meeting my expectations just as I thought he would.  That’s right -- Richard Hanna has run a campaign of misdirection and generalities, just as I expected he would!  He has come out in favor of saying “No” to everything that the Republican leadership wishes -- like the extension of unemployment benefits to 2.5 million people while at the same time supported extending tax cuts for the richest 2% (without any indication of how to pay for that extension).  That certainly met my expectations.  Then, of course, I have searched and searched for anything comparable to an actual Hanna plan for reducing spending and supporting jobs for the middle class.  There is none.  I found only vague references to these problems but no specific measures for solving them.  Again, he more than met my expectations.

I more than sympathize with the gentleman who wrote in the Observer-Dispatch-D recently that the voters of this area need to put their faith in the Republican party and its candidates.  I got the distinct impression that this poor man is living in a world that has passed him by -- a world in which moderate and progressive Republicans existed, like Sherwood Boehlert and Jacob Javits.  That brand of Republican is gone, gone, gone, as is their moderate approach to solving the nation’s problems.  The neo-conservatives who came to power with the Reagan administration have effectively destroyed that brand of Republicanism.  So, if you have the same expectations for Richard Hanna that you might have had for a Sherwood Boehlert -- forget it -- it’s not going to happen.  Richard Hanna, as a freshman Congressman, would be beholden to the Republican leadership of the Congress -- radical Right-wingers like John Boehner and Eric Cantor -- for committee assignments, getting bills considered, consideration for his district.  In other words, he would have to go along to get along; unfortunately that means cow-towing to the radical Right.  Hanna knows it, and Voters need to know it too!

If your expectations extend to: improvement of the economy and more job opportunities (not favored treatment for the very banks, wall street firms, insurance companies and businesses that are holding back on creating jobs while their profits increase), new and creative opportunities for Central New York like high-speed rail, reasoned alternative energy and environmental improvements (not the vague improvements touted by Republicans), then you need to vote to re-elect the progressive moderate in this race: Congressman Michael Arcuri, who has already proven that he can deliver all this and more for the people of Central New York, and has even been named “Legislator of the Year” for the bills he has written or co-sponsored.