Way To Go, Mr. President

Hooray for President Obama!  He has finally made some bold moves to point up the failures of Congress while taking actions that support the broad middle class.  What’s more, he is finding ways to do this by Executive Order, acting in spite of an uncooperative Congress. 

Strangely enough, I spoke of the need for this kind of bold action at least a year ago when I wrote to the White House.  My latest call for such action, titled “Bold Action Is Imperative”, appeared on this Blog on June 12, 2011.  What I said then was “what Obama needs to do is to come up with a PLAN of bold steps touted with massive publicity that is unrelenting.”  I even suggested that parts of that Plan should be: the faster draw-down of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; a massive infrastructure/jobs bill; extension of unemployment benefits; and, an increase in tuition grants and loans for college students.  

I certainly can’t take credit for the President’s Plan, but I, for one, am grateful for his actions.  From some reports, he has more such actions up his sleeve, and I hope they include the use of already-appropriated, but unspent, funds that could legally be used for the creation of jobs or job-related activities.  I spoke here of such possibilities in my Blog of May 15, 2011, when I listed several areas of jobs that can be created and offered through the Corporation for National and Community Service, through the Labor Department and through OPM, the Job Corps, and the Veteran’s Administration, to name a few. 

What I would suggest is that the President’s staff should be culling through various departments and offices of the federal government (and talking with governors of states) to determine what unspent funds are available to be used for job creation and support (such as training).  Even with the government under a Continuing Resolution for FY2012, there are unspent funds available. 

Secondly, what about stimulus monies that have gone unspent in TARP, ARRA, and TANF?  Certainly at the end of 2010, we heard a great deal about such unspent funds, or at least of projects that were not “shovel-ready.”  There is no greater stimulus needed than jobs, job training, and incentives for job creation in the private sector. 

There have to be funds already authorized and appropriated that have gone unspent.  How about it, Mr. President?  Can you and your administrative staff find ways to use this money NOW for our greatest needs: job creation and job stimulus?  And, by the way, if Congress puts up a fuss because they want that unspent money to be cut from our budget deficit, tell them that the American people are suffering and there is no greater need right now than that of relief for the broad middle class!

Here are some recent examples of unspent funds that I have been able to find:

1)  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - apparently, not only are there carry-over funds available, but there is an Emergency Fund also available.  It seems likely that the Emergency funds can be used to subsidize employment.  Previously, carry-over funds could only be used to provide assistance (the ongoing basic needs payment, and supportive services such as transportation and child care to families not employed). Now jurisdictions (States, Territories, D.C., and Tribes) may use any unspent Federal TANF money from a prior fiscal year to provide any allowable TANF benefit, service, or activity – i.e., not just assistance

2)  Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) - 
This was originally meant by the Bush administration to relieve big banks from some of their toxic assets, so they could maintain liquidity and solvency.  In February 2009, President Obama’s administration proposed to use some of the unspent TARP money to aid small businesses (and to pay down the deficit).  The debacle that ensued ended up with Congress wanting to spend all money returned to the fund on the deficit.  Question is, is there any money leftover still from the TARP legislation, and if so, can it be used creatively to aid more middle class homeowners, small business owners, and unemployed workers? 

3)  American Recovery and Re-Investment Act (ARRA) - the $48.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the $10 billion in additional Title I aid and the $11.3 billion in additional special education funds—were supposed to be spent by states by October 1, 2011 but an extension to spend has been granted.  According to a recent article by Michele McNeil, the states have $2.28 billion left to draw down between those three funds—a total that doesn't include smaller special education programs, such as the one for infants, Title I School Improvement Grants, and Race to the Top, which have a longer spending timeline.   Again, money is leftover, so is there any way to involve states with such money to hire additional teachers for special education, and construction workers to rehab rundown schools?

4)  Is there any unused or un-granted or wasted money that can be used toward job creation?  Here’s a thought for President Obama:  find a useless program in the Executive branch (like the outmoded RUS of DoA); offer to shut it down and use the saved money for job creation if Congress will agree to shut-down a useless office (like that of Chaplains) and do the same.  Quite seriously, the GAO Report of March 2011 on Opportunities to Reduce Duplication in Government Programs offered numerous examples of waste and duplication that could produce needed funds, not just for deficit reduction, but for job creation.

Here’s a thought: why not announce an evaluation of all government programs and contracts in order to find savings that can be used for job creation?  Let’s get serious about re-inventing government and, at the same time, use savings to create job opportunities. 

Unfortunately, the path that the President has chosen has its limits, both constitutionally and politically.  He can only get so far with Executive Orders because the Congress is not going to put up with that forever.  He is also limited in the scope of Executive power by the Constitution, which gave the lion’s share of central power to the Legislature and limited the scope of the Executive’s power.  Of course, the evolution of a so-called “Imperial Presidency” has helped to grow the President’s ability to act on his own.

So now that the President has found his BOLD side, let us not waste this opportunity.  Progressives should take this as their opportunity to make suggestions to the White House for ways to divert money into job creation without involving the do-nothing Congress.  Any thoughts out there?  Please share them at my e-mail address:  impublius2@hotmail.com.

A Vision for Healthcare - Part VI

What would be some of the savings from a single-payer health care system?  Well, first of all, it is estimated by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) that “the reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.  Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $400 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.”

Second, PNHP intends that National Health Insurance (NHI) would pay each hospital a monthly lump sum -a global budget - to cover operating expenses.  This amount would be negotiated yearly based on past expenditures, fiscal and clinical performance, projected changes in levels of services, wages and input costs, and proposed innovations.  Hospitals would not be allowed to bill for services covered by NHI, but equally important could not use any of their operating budget for expansion, profit, excessive executive incomes, marketing, or major capital purposes.  The latter would come from NHI funds and would be appropriated separately based on community needs.  Privately-owned hospitals would be converted to non-profits and their owners would be compensated for past investment.  These methods of payments to hospitals would shift the focus of administrators from the bottom line of profit and thus of lucrative services, and hopefully toward providing optimal care and services to meet patient needs.  This “global budgeting” would virtually eliminate billing, freeing substantial savings for enhanced clinical care.  Prohibiting use of operating funds for capital improvements would eliminate the primary financial incentive for excess interventions and services as well as its opposite (skimping on care) since neither strategy could result in institutional gain.

Third, the PHNP says NHI would include three payment options for physicians and other practitioners:  fee-for-service; salaried positions in institutions; salaried positions within group practices or HMOs.  Privately-funded HMOs and group practices would also be converted to non-profits.  Only institutions that actually deliver care could receive NHI payments, thus excluding many HMOs and groups that currently sub-contract services but don’t maintain clinical facilities.

Fee-for-service would include a negotiated binding fee schedule.  Payments would include only physicians and their support staff, but not reimbursement for costly office capital expenditures like MRI scanners. 

Institutions like hospitals, health centers, group practices, clinics, and home care agencies could elect to receive a “global budget” for delivery of care, as well as for education and preventative programs.

HMOs and other institutions could elect to be paid capitation premiums to cover all outpatient, physician, and medical home care.  Regulation of payments for capital expenditures would be similar to that for hospitals.

The three proposed payment options uncouple physician payment and other operating costs from capital purchases.  According to PNHP, this is necessary to minimize entrepreneurial enterprises, contain costs, and facilitate health planning.  The fee-for-service option would greatly reduce physician office overhead by simplifying billing to one payer.  It is also possible that there might need to be a cap on spending for program administration and reimbursement bureaucracy - perhaps 3% of total costs.  Global negotiated budgets for institutional providers would eliminate billing costs; at the same time providing a stable and predictable financial support.  It could also stimulate development of community prevention programs (e.g. smoking cessation). 

Fourth, NHI will cover disabled Americans of all ages for all necessary nursing home and home care.  According to PNHP, a “local public agency in each community would determine eligibility and coordinate care.  Each agency would receive a single budgetary allotment to cover the full array of long term care services in its district.  The agency would contract with long-term care (not-for-profit) providers for the full range of needed services, eliminating the perverse incentives in the current system that often pays for expensive institutional care but not the home-based services that most patients would prefer.”  The program would encourage home and community-based services by supporting the 7 million unpaid caregivers that provide 70% of the care, and by supporting the expanded training of geriatric physicians, nurses and social workers who would assume leadership of this system.

Finally, NHI would pay for all medically necessary prescription drugs and medical supplies, based on a national formulary, established and updated by an expert panel.  The most important provision of this would be the negotiation by NHI with the drug and equipment manufacturers, based on costs (excluding extras like advertising and lobbying costs).  Suppliers would bill the NHI directly for any item in the formulary that is prescribed by a licensed practitioner.  Because of its single payer status, the NHI could exert substantial pressure on pharmaceutical companies and equipment manufacturers to lower prices, resulting in very substantial savings which is not happening under the current multiple private-payer system.

Of course, this single-payer system will have start-up and transition problems.  Surely it will not solve all problems; i.e. improvements in environmental and occupational health will not automatically follow; need for improvements in quality will remain; medical school problems of high tuition and lack of minority representation will continue; some physicians will still succumb to temptations to enhance their earnings by encouraging unneeded services.  However, a framework for addressing such problems will be in place. 

And, it’s better than the alternatives, including:  the current multiple-payer debacle; defined contribution schemes with lower-paid employees forced into skimpy plans; tax subsidies and vouchers; turning Medicaid over to states.

An article under the heading of the PNHP concludes:  “Incremental changes cannot solve these problems; further reliance on market-based strategies will exacerbate them.  What needs to be changed is the system itself.”

This change to a new system of health care insurance and delivery is still one of the most important steps we could take to save money and thus affect the national budget, to give relief to businesses, to cover all citizens with health insurance, and to literally bring relief to the pocket-books of millions thereby restoring confidence in our healthcare system and increasing the likelihood of better research and innovation than we have seen in a long time.

Dissent - part of the American Vision

Dissent is built into the foundation of the American nation (Declaration of Independence); it is woven into the fabric of our democracy (Constitution & Bill of Rights); it is the well-spring from which greater civil rights have been nurtured and realized (e.g. Women’s Rights movement, the Union movement and the Civil Rights movement).  Dissent is a 100% American tradition; a patriotic action; a legitimated form of redress of grievances with judicial affirmation.  It’s non-violent form is most acceptable, but it’s violent formulation cannot simply be eschewed when precipitated by dictatorial and tyrannical governmental means that attempt to destroy the very foundations upon which our democracy is built (the Revolutionary War).

Dissent is on my mind today because of two major happenings in our country: the “Occupation of Wall Street” protests throughout the nation and the dedication of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the Mall in Washington, D.C.  They are both monuments to the place of non-violent dissent in the furthering of the American Ideal of rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; of the American Vision of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; of the American Dream of one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.  But, they are more than simple representations. 

The Martin Luther King Memorial reminds us vividly of the many people who put their lives on the line to protest American apartheid: the segregation of races in public facilities, particularly in schools and housing, the discrimination against people of color in jobs and wages, in banking, in living accommodations, in voting, in all manner of ways that were intended to keep “them in their place” which was always a lesser place; a place which targeted and maintained “them” as inferiors.   Such discrimination was the poisonous plant that grew out of the defiled soil of slavery.  Slavery of black people, and the elimination or herding of native Americans onto restricted reservations, were two stains upon the formation of our Republic because they influenced our Constitution,  public policy and the prejudices of our citizenry, for generations. 

Let us never forget that many people actually gave their lives in this great civil rights struggle, including Dr. King and so many of his followers.  I think today of the four young girls lost in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist church in Montgomery, of Viola Liuzzo the homemaker, of Jonathan Daniels the seminarian, of Michael Schwerner organizer, James Chaney apprentice, and Andrew Goodman student, of Medgar Evers army veteran and activist leader.  And, there are so many more….

I think today of one of my personal heroes, who put herself in jeopardy by going to St. Augustine, FL in the summer of 1964 to participate in a sit-in. The arrest of Mary Peabody-- the 72 year old mother of the governor of Massachusetts and wife of retired Episcopal Bishop, Malcolm Peabody-- for attempting to eat at the segregated Ponce de Leon Motor Lodge in an integrated group, made front page news across the country, and brought the civil rights movement in St. Augustine to the attention of the world.  If ever there was a woman who could be seen as a comfortable, white Protestant of patrician background, Mrs. Peabody was it.  But nothing could be farther from the truth: she was an activist involved in many endeavors (see more about Mary Parkman Peabody at oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~sch01116)

She was someone I was privileged to have known.  In fact, she and her retired husband lived just a few doors down from me at the Episcopal Theological Seminary in Cambridge, MA.  Her husband, Malcolm Peabody, the former Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Central New York, under whom I began my quest to become a student at the seminary, was my Bishop for as long as I can remember, from my days as an acolyte in my local church to my acceptance at ETS.  The first summer after my first academic year at ETS was a busy one, but was made all the more bearable by the kind offer of their house for the summer for me and my new bride, which they kindly extended again during my second summer at ETS. 

Between those summer sojourns at Phillips Place, there was a snowstorm in the Boston area that was unrelenting, and that disrupted transportation and other services (most likely January 20, 1961).  As I was about to walk to God-knows-where, I walked by the Peabody home and there was a figure bundled up in a substantial hooded jacket, trying to shovel out their long walkway to the street.  I thought it was the Bishop, but when I got closer to ask if I could take over the shoveling, it turned out to be Mrs. Peabody who was determined she was going to dig them out, no matter what.  Upon my insistence that I would be glad to do the shoveling in thanks for their on-going generosity, she relented (I was careful not to say anything about age or gender!).  Let me tell you, that was the longest, toughest walkway I have ever shoveled, before or since!  I was exhausted at the end of it. 

Mrs. Peabody never shrank from a task; she was not satisfied until a difficult situation or problem was addressed with vigor, just as she did not shrink from the call to address the national injustice known as segregation; she viewed it as a duty.  She was nearing 70 when she tried to shovel that walk; she was 72 when she went to St. Augustine to stage a sit-in.  I’ll just bet you there were times when she influenced her Bishop husband and her Governor son on their commitments, their duty, and their responsibilities!  I write about her in this context because she clearly represents the heritage of our founding fathers (and mothers); she represents that ideal that we must address injustice; that we must dissent when government or public policy leads to tyranny or just plain discrimination. 

We are individually responsible for the health and well-being of the American Ideal, the American Vision, the American Dream.  The demonstrations reportedly now going on in over 190 cities throughout these United States are live protests in response to the dysfunctional nature of our government and of our economic system.  It is too early to say how significant these will be, but this we do know: these are not hippie demonstrations; they are not unorganized; they are not purposeless; they are not attempts to abrogate law and order. 

At our local “Occupation”, I saw many signs of what this protest is about. It‘s about:
- the threat of plutocracy or oligarchy to our democratic system: the 1% dictating policy and outcomes for the other 99%
- the inequality of our economic system: the advance of the profits and riches of the 1% versus the stagnation of the wages and benefits for the broad middle working class; and
- the use of governmental entities and legislation to ensure that this subsidization of the rich remains intact;
- the duty of the rich to pay their fair share in taxes and contributions to the nation’s welfare;
- the overwhelming need for American jobs;
- the tax breaks and policies and incentives that have favored large corporations and enabled them to do what they want, when they want;
- the unfavorable treatment of labor unions and their collective bargaining rights; their destruction;
- the destruction of our democratic system by the infusion of vast amounts of money into our politics in order to influence legislative and regulatory outcomes in favor of the 1%;
- overturning the unfortunate Supreme Court Citizens United decision which sees money in politics as unrestricted free speech for corporations as individuals;
- other concerns include: war, the environment, education costs.

When mass dissent raises complicated issues and questions that must be addressed and answered by our governmental and societal leaders, it is important for us to remember its place in our history, and to respond accordingly.  The narrow response of law and order borders on oppression; the response of personal attacks represents elitism, and the response of indifference speaks to nothing less than irresponsibility.  Reasoned and reasonable dissent requires a positive response from our government and our people for it is the life-blood that keeps renewing and strengthening our exceptional democracy.  To be intent on oppression of every form of dissent is to be on the side of anti-democratic responses that betray American values, and that deny this important thread of our heritage.  

Purposeful dissent is part of My Vision for America.  It is woven into the fabric of our Democratic Republic; it is part of what makes us great, for many of its forms and manifestations have advanced us toward our Ideal, our Vision, our Dream.  We as a nation can never accept the status quo as all there is meant to be, for we know that there is greater freedom, broader rights, and stronger justice toward which we must strive.  We are a nation of strivers who believe, with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we have a Dream to be realized. That is why we are called to let freedom ring; to keep hope alive; to pledge ourselves to liberty and justice for all.  It is why we revere Lincoln’s words in the Gettysburg Address that call us to look beyond ourselves and our failings to a greater cause:

“It is for us the living… to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced… to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

My Vision for America -- Part IV

As we have said, education is a primary key to America’s future.  Friedman and Mandelbaum in their book, “That Used to be Us” go even further by declaring that “Today…more than ever before, our national security depends on the quality of our educational system.”  They connect education quality to economic growth which is the key to national power and influence in today’s flattening world.  They quote President Obama on this same subject: “the country that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow.”  This is why Friedman and Mandlebaum have concluded: “Today, what matters is not how your local school ranks in its county or state but how America’s schools rank in the world.”

We have explored one of the six areas in which they say our schools must improve, i.e. the need to have excellent teachers and principals.  To that, I have added my own thoughts for improvement.  It is now time to explore the other five areas, but first I offer once again my own Purpose Statement for Public Education which I believe must overlay all that I say about education reform.

“To involve an entire community of educators (administrators, teachers, students, parents, volunteers and other interested citizens) in the teaching of traditional and foundational curricula (history, English, mathematics, science, language, technology);  in the drawing out of experiential learnings (through the arts, simulated games, business internships and problem-solving) and in the discovery of skills, talents, concepts, beliefs, values and verities, in order to produce accomplished individuals, informed citizens, critical and independent thinkers, lifetime learners, cultural literates, world-class workers and competitors, and compassionate human beings willing to advocate for the welfare of the human family.”

The second area of improvement must be parents who are more involved and demanding of what will pass as quality education.  This also speaks to the third necessity of having students who come to school prepared to learn.

This must start before parents actually have children in school.  It starts with excellent pre-natal care.  It starts with as small a thing as playing classical music when a child is still in the womb.  It starts with reading to children at very early ages.  It starts with parents teaching the alphabet and letter sounds and the recognizing of objects and body parts.  It starts with an attitude on the part of parents that children can start discovering and learning as soon as they exit the womb.  Parents have a responsibility from the moment of conception to find out, to discover, to research how they can be educators for their children.  That means that society needs to be more focused on helping parents to realize this goal.  We need school districts concentrating on how they can assist parents of pre-school age children.  If public schools are to become community centers of learning, we need districts to provide home visitors who can teach appropriate education skills to parents.    

When their children are in schools, parents need to be more like Chinese parents, like Amy Chua who wrote “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” who issued a wake-up call to American parents.  As she said in her book, “Studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children.  The Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future…arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.” 

While there may be a fine line between such involvement and “making your kid neurotic”, in general, Friedman and Mandelbaum believe that Chua has two things quite right: the need to hold children to the highest standards that push them out of their comfort zones, and the need to be involved in their schooling.”  Trophies for everyone is a travesty on standard-setting.  Rewarding kids simply for effort is short-sighted;  they should be rewarded for excellence, and American parents especially need to learn this.

Clearly, parents need to be involved in the life of the school community.  A PTA of the past is not adequate.  We need parent mentors and teachers in the classrooms.  We need parent organizations who become advisers to their districts and their school systems.  We need parent representatives who will meet with other parents and express their frustrations, ideas and opinions to the system overseers.  In other words, parents must organize to push for policies, standards and actions that will challenge their schools and their children while also caring about their futures.
   
A fourth need is for politicians who push to raise educational standards.  Politicians need to understand what we have already said: that education is the key to our economy and our position in the world.  Politicians must themselves become educators and learners.  As a whole, they themselves are inadequately prepared to be either.  They need to become better informed on what is going on in schools throughout this country, and throughout the world.  Perhaps an education “junket” to understand best practices in education would be a better use of tax dollars than some of the “vacations” that some politicians have disguised in the past as “learning experiences.”
 
Politicians, especially governors, cannot be content with the standards they set under “No Child Left Behind” legislation.  Some states set standards that were blatantly inferior so that students could pass the tests.  Some governors have now laid off teachers and administrators and shortened the school week or day, in order to save money.  Was this action based on educational criteria, or simply on the need to cut spending?  In my opinion, they are sabotaging the long-term growth and competitiveness of their students, their citizens, their economies, and their states.  Governors need to raise standards, fund best practices, test against personal education goals and against other countries, connect education with real jobs through internships, increase education hours, push community service as learning, and invest heavily in teacher and administrator training.  That’s a beginning.

Finally, we need neighbors ready to invest in schools even though their children are not there, and business leaders committed to raising educational standards in their communities.

We cannot make enough progress in our public schools unless neighbors appreciate, and involve themselves with, the schools in their neighborhood.  After all, the status of their schools greatly affects the whole neighborhood.  A good neighborhood school draws concerned and competent families and therefore the economy of a neighborhood may depend a great deal on the health of their schools.  Go to board of education meetings, organize to demand better education, join with parents in their efforts, but most of all, become involved in the schools as volunteers, as mentors, as classroom aides; in whatever role will enhance the status of that school as a healthy learning community.

Business leaders have a unique opportunity to influence the education and development of students and their schools.  But, where are the business leaders?  Increasingly, they are less interested in the big picture that includes educational endeavors, than in their narrow concern for profitability.   With all the money they spend on lobbying for their own interests, could they not devote some of their lobbying toward improvement of education in this country?  It’s really in their short-term and long-term interest to be more active in influencing legislation which will support higher education standards, top-notch technical schools, world-famous teacher training academies, school re-construction, and classroom resources.  Why isn’t there a coalition of leading companies intent on doing this? 

Why aren’t Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Verizon, etc. joining together to make sure that every public school has high-speed broadband communications capability, has powerful laptops for every student, and desktops for every classroom and lab?  I don’t know the definitive answer, but emphasize that it is imperative for the future economy.

There are some good examples of internships for high school students in local businesses and some corporations.  That kind of on-the-job experience is vital for students of all kinds, but it is currently just a trickle.  Business leaders need to be in the schools and classrooms as well, giving presentations on how businesses operate, what they expect from employees, and how to go about getting interviews and jobs, and even internships, with their companies.

Business leaders need to push politicians, not only about the quality of American education, but they need to push for immigration policies that will attract talent to this country in high-skill jobs.  A view that restricts such immigration, or that restricts education and careers for foreign students, is again short-sighted in terms of our economic health and growth.  Business leaders need to come out of the shadows of corporate greed and get involved in producing an education system that will benefit us all.

Friedman and Mandelbaum have a conclusion worth your consideration: “we simply cannot escape the fact that we as a society have some catching up to do in education generally.  When you are trying to catch up, you have to work harder, focus on the fundamentals, and get everyone to pitch in.  Give us a country where everyone feels that he or she has a real stake in improving education…and we promise you the best teachers will become even better, the average ones will improve, and the worst ones will truly stick out.”

My Vision for America–Part III

Discussion of education reform is going on right now somewhere near you because many in this country are concerned about the education of our children and grandchildren, and millions of these people are quite worried. 

I have referred in my recent blogs on education to a current  book written by Thomas Friedman and Steven Mandelbaum titled:  “That Used to Be Us”.  Once again, I will take that book as a launching pad, exploring one of six items that the authors say is needed to bring America to where we need to be related to both the economy and education.  But first, I must again put this discussion into the context of my evolving Purpose Statement for public education which I continue to amend:

“To involve an entire community of educators (administrators, teachers, students, parents, volunteers and other interested citizens) in the teaching of traditional and foundational curricula (history, English, mathematics, science, language, technology);  in the drawing out of experiential learnings (through the arts, simulated games, and problem-solving) and in the discovery of skills, talents, concepts, beliefs, values and verities, in order to produce accomplished individuals, informed citizens, critical and independent thinkers, lifetime learners, cultural literates, world-class workers and competitors, and compassionate human beings willing to advocate for the welfare of the human family.”

The first and primary need is for  better teachers and better principals.  According to research, the most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching, and yet many of our teachers are poorly educated.  Unfortunately, we have not made great strides in developing excellent teachers.  Friedman and Mandelbaum suggest a first step might be a new National Academy, modeled after our military academies.  In my opinion, regional academies might be more practical and more accessible. 

However, I think we must start at a wholly different point:  in high school (maybe Junior High), current teachers and administrators must make a conscious effort to identify young people who are, or could potentially be, in the top 10% of their class; who may already be tutoring or mentoring their peers; who may already demonstrate some passion for teaching.  Current teachers and administrators need to start identifying these students early on and engage in leading them toward a teaching career, perhaps by visiting their families, or having them teach a class, having them visit other schools and teachers, showing them some results of good teaching by relating success stories of students, or having them actually meet with the persons who have become successful because of excellent teaching.  While their target should be those in the top 10%, the recruiting teachers should always be on the look-out for potential teachers below that level who can be tutored or mentored into the top 10% , and who have that passion for teaching that can also be nurtured.  Current teachers must become recruiters, tutors and mentors for potential teachers. 

In order to have this first step mean anything, however, there must be some other criteria in place:

--  How many of you have ever heard of a famous school of education at a college or university?  Schools of education at various universities and colleges must advertise and promote themselves more vociferously; they must become schools of excellence as well known as the Wharton School of Business, or MIT, or West Point, or the Duke Medical Center.  Maybe they could become regional academies with names that are known throughout the world.  After all, prestige is a strong incentive. 

I strongly believe that these schools must, above all, be the instigators of change in the teaching profession.  It is simply not enough to train teachers in the history of education theory, child development,  or the mechanics of teaching in a classroom.  Teachers must be trained to be facilitators: they must understand group process, they must have an understanding of how to use new technologies to advance learning, they must have an understanding of counseling techniques, they must know how to work with a team of educators including student peer-teachers and volunteers; they must have instruction in experiential learning, in the scientific method, in the facilitation of learning through use of unexplored or additional resources; they must know how to involve parents, businesses, and citizens in the education process and in the education community.  This is not your grandparents’ world.  This is a new world we are living in, and new methods of approaching it must be part of every educator’s repertoire.

--  Students must be able to see the teaching profession as one of the top five career choices.  One way to do this, of course, is to have the beginning salary for teachers reflect the salaries of other professions in an area.  We cannot recruit, let alone maintain, excellent teachers if we do not make salaries commensurate with excellence!  Until excellent teachers can be provided with salaries that engender prestige, status, success, and passionate commitment to that profession from the community, we can forget about making substantial progress in public education.  How do we pay for it?  Anyway we can.  If we can afford to pay professional athletes six-figure salaries for playing games, we can find a way to pay our teachers prestigious salaries.  I have suggested previously that school boards need to explore ways to obtain operating expenses for education; a small  education levy on everyone is one way to do it.  Is that asking too much?  Not if the future of this country rests so clearly on the excellence of our teachers!

--  Recognition of excellent teachers must be part of every district’s operation.  School boards should be in charge of providing that recognition on an on-going basis.  It should include ceremonies, bonuses, awards, plaques, national recognition, every possible way to bring excellence in teaching before the public and to laud our teachers for what they are doing.

--  One form of recognition and the producing of passion for teaching is the on-going development of teaching excellence.  We need teachers exchanging classes with other teachers in their own schools as well as in other schools, we need teacher-to-teacher mentoring programs, we need regional and national institutes for teachers, we need new ways to upgrade skills.    Without this kind of professional development strategy in place, we cannot expect excellent teachers to grow beyond their current skill-level. 

--  We also need established career ladders for teachers and principals who are identified as highly effective.  Too many excellent teachers leave our schools because they can’t see a future beyond where they started.  We need “mentor teachers”, “teacher coaches”, “senior teachers” -- new levels for people who have become experts, specialists, and tutors who can help other teachers be all they can be.  Friedman and Mandelbaum remind us that China has four levels of proficiency in their teaching profession, and in order to move up a level, teachers must demonstrate their excellence to a private review board.   

What about administrators?  Much of what we have said about teachers can also be said about training of principals: prestigious academies, appropriate salaries, professional development, recognition, etc.  After all, it is clear that entire schools can be affected by a good or bad principal.  But one thing I envision is that every principal must have some sort of teaching experience in their background.  It doesn’t necessarily need to be in a public school,  but every principal needs some understanding of the types of challenges which every teacher faces.  If we are going to ask principals to oversee a budget, to develop and supervise teachers, and to deal with the community’s concerns, we must give principals more ability to construct their budgets, to choose (and to un-choose!) their own teachers, and to be supported by their boards of education in their community roles.  According to one expert, great principals attract great teachers, but terrible principals drive out great teachers.

--  In the case of both teachers and principals, there needs to be a fair and unbiased evaluation of their performance. Probably at least 50% of every teacher’s and principal’s performance evaluation should be based on student growth, but “growth” must be evaluated on criteria that include skills and attitudes that go beyond grades alone, as related to criteria mentioned in the above Purpose Statement.  Teachers and principals should also have a say on what is included in evaluation criteria and instruments that are utilized.  Evaluations like this should provide the criteria for reductions in force: based on effectiveness, not tenure.  Anyone rated “ineffective” for 2-3 years should lose their jobs. 

In my opinion, evaluation by students of their teachers and their principals must be included.  Leaving students out of on-going evaluation leaves a gap that cannot be filled by anyone else.  Students know when they are being short-changed.  Students can be fair, especially if the evaluation instrument is well-constructed (with student and teacher input) by a contracted group or by a local board with expert help. 

A final word on evaluation:
According to the President of the AFT, a key question is how teachers are evaluated.  She said: “We need evaluation systems based on multiple measures of both teacher practice and what students are learning.”  I would agree wholeheartedly, but would add that “learning” should be more than grades on tests, as indicated in the above Purpose Statement.  Some of the most important “learnings” never show up on tests, like values learned, social skills acquired, caring attitudes gained, community involvement demonstrated.  If student growth was evaluated based on an Individual Education Plan for each pupil, instead of on criteria imposed by higher authorities, there would open-up a whole new method of performance evaluation related to learning and growth, and a whole new methodology for building and re-formulating curricula, peer mentoring, intervention from parents, community involvement, etc.

There are six items to consider and we have just skimmed the surface of one: the need for better teachers and better principals.  Next time, I hope to say a bit about my Vision for Education in the following five areas also mentioned by Friedman and Mandelbaum:

Parents who are more involved
Politicians who push to raise educational standards
Neighbors ready to invest in schools even though their children are not there
Business leaders committed to raising educational standards in their communities
Students who come to school prepared to learn