Does Egypt’s Revolution Teach us Anything About Foreign Policy?

Let us hope that the Egyptian Revolution puts us all on a path to better governing and governance!  Let us hope -- no, let us resolve -- that their victory for human rights can be our victory as well.   We Americans, from the perspective of  a very young (representative) democracy, must be willing to have an ancient civilization teach us something vital: that the very basic yearning for freedom, liberty and justice is not limited to a small group of people, but exists everywhere, in all peoples.  It is not our right, nor our responsibility, to “spread democracy”.  It is, rather, our responsibility to support the yearnings, the dreams, the aspirations of others toward democratic ideals that should guide our foreign relations and our foreign aid.

Egypt may have taught us some other very important lessons.  One, that human contact and relationships are vital to our relations with other groups.  It can probably never be determined or revealed how important was the contact between our military personnel and their counterparts in Egypt.  That contact was built on mutual ties of education, trust, goodwill, and common ground that were forged in our military schools.  We need to use the idea of common ground to forge more such relationships with other countries through education and training around common goals; and not just in the military.   The support of education and training in other cultures, the support of mutual education and training within this country; the support of person-to-person mutual learning and teaching - as through the PEACE CORPS -- is absolutely vital to our national interest and to the aspirations of others in other countries. 

Second, the propping-up of military and other kinds of dictatorships, is not a good way to use our taxpayer dollars.  The billions that Hosni Mubarak and his family accumulated for themselves out of our foreign aid, and what it could buy for them, is ludicrous.  More specifically, the use of foreign aid to dictators for the express purpose of buying our armaments and weapons for their own use is a travesty.  We are the leading purveyor of arms to other countries.  That must stop because we cannot “buy” the allegiance or the loyalty of dictatorships and expect that it will serve us in the long run.  It will, instead, put us in the bind in which the Obama Administration found itself ; namely, when a dictator is challenged by his or her own people, we have grave difficulty deciding who to support: the people, or the dictator who has served our bought interests for a number of years.  We must free ourselves from that conundrum, and change our approach to supporting dictators, once and for all.  Oh yes, and just so we don’t forget:  the American arms bought by dictators, and given to dictators, have ended up helping to oppress their people, especially when the people decide they have had enough and then rebel.  “Order” is then the key word, and order is restored by repressing the people with the tanks and guns and who knows what (tear gas canisters!) that we Americans supplied through foreign aid.

Third, this Egyptian Revolution may not succeed.  And why not?  Because there is no recognized leader amongst the people ready to lead.  Because there is a “culture” of bribery for getting things done simply because people need to enhance their dismal pay with bribes.  Because there is a forced absence of democratic institutions and practice (like a free press), of voluntarism and organizing, of alliances and coalitions -- all focused on helping neighbors; on the well-being of the community; on the rights of each and of all.  You can’t have a democracy - or democratic practices - without the attitudes and ideals that support that way of thinking and acting. 

Our foreign aid must be attuned to those needs, and must find a way to encourage people in all lands toward a democratic mind-set and a democratic approach to solving and resolving problems; indeed, a way of living.  How do we do that?  I don’t know exactly.  I can only say it has something to do with the principles of community organizing: the very strategies that have been so denigrated and attacked (remember ACORN?)  by a certain group in this country.  It is a tragedy that we ourselves have allowed the rights and aspirations of the poor, the homeless, the poorly trained and educated, even of children and the elderly, to be restricted, held down, trod upon and unfunded.  What are some of those community organization principles and programs?  Advocacy for oneself and for each other; formation of coalitions and grassroots organizations; community linkages (networking); voter training; job training; child-care provision and early intervention and education; in-home parent support and training; access to legal aid;  nutrition and adequate meals; mutual aid; home maintenance -- it goes on and on because there is always something more that one can do for oneself and for/with the community.

Let us come back to foreign aid.  Ron Paul may be right in some respects about foreign aid: it does deserve our criticism, but not our abandonment!  After all, abandonment of foreign aid would be an undue restriction placed on the constitutional powers granted to the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy: to make Treaties, to appoint ambassadors, to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers.  And taking away that executive power would only serve to enhance the power of Congress in the realm of foreign policy:  and we don’t need a contentious Congress trying to decide by Committee deliberation, where, and for what reason, to place a particular piece of foreign aid.

With this small detour, we shall look next time at some principles and practices that might guide our foreign aid.

FOREIGN AID: Eliminate or Re-structure?

Ron Paul,  Libertarian Republican Congressman from Texas, wants to eliminate all foreign aid.  In light of the situation in Egypt, one can understand a reaction to the $1.5 billion annual request in foreign aid to Egypt (and to other Middle Eastern countries in varying amounts), but Paul’s over-reaction is typical of politicians blinded by their ideologies to the larger realities of the wide world.  Can we not count on our Congressional leadership for more thoughtful and intelligent leadership?  Probably not.  Strangely enough, this attitude harks back to the proposals of a certain staunch conservative (some called him worse), named Jesse Helms who proposed in 1995 that the Agency for International Development be replaced with a foundation that would channel foreign aid for education, health and agriculture through grants to companies and nonprofit groups.

This is not to say that Dr. Paul doesn’t make any sense.  His is not the only critic of our foreign aid policies, and of the process by which our largesse is distributed. Many independent “watch-dog” groups have said that our foreign aid:

Props up dictators and provides opportunities for them to line their own pockets;
Often does not get to the people who need it because of corruption in the distribution system;
Finds its way back to this country through contracts with U.S. corporations;
Reduces free trade by forcing recipient countries to buy U.S. goods and services;
Too often involves the financial and political interests of the current Administration;
Rewards political and military partners rather than advancing humanitarian causes ;
Is used as a political weapon for the US to make other nations do things “our way”;
Promotes aggression and war through sale of military weapons or transfer of cash that can be used to buy weapons;
Since 9/11, has been cast too frequently in terms of “contributing to the war on terrorism” as the top foreign aid priority.

Let’s first put “foreign aid” in perspective.  In FY 2009, the Bush Administration’s foreign aid request for the Department of State and USAID, equaled $39.5 billion.  Although we do not have the  Obama Administration’s budget figures for 2011, there will probably be some cuts in aid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps lowering this figure by a few billion dollars.  What is important to understand is that the total foreign affairs budget in the FY 2010 federal budget was just 1.7% of the total budget for operating the federal government (according to a Forbes article).  This percentage may be even less under the FY2011 budget being proposed by the Obama administration.  For anyone serious about reducing the deficit, it is doubtful that foreign aid is the most productive place to start. 

The United States leads all developed nations in the total amount of foreign aid given to other nations (probably because the USA is the richest nation and this figure encompasses all foreign aid, including private sector contributions!).  However, the USA is rated the 21st stingiest of 22 developed countries in terms of the percentage of governmental foreign aid given in relation to its GNP.  Denmark is actually on top in that latter category, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the USA manages just .17%.  Not only is the USA the second stingiest in proportion to its GDP, but the largest portion of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.  

Unlike Ron Paul’s simplistic analysis, let us realize that “foreign aid” is a very complicated subject, involving different sources of aid and various reasons for the aid in the first place.  Generally, different types of foreign aid support different objectives. 

The Clinton Administration emphasized the promotion of “sustainable development” as a new post-Cold War strategy for the programs under the aegis of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), centered around six inter-related goals: broad-based economic growth; development of democratic systems; stabilization of world population and protection of human health; management of the environment; building human capacity through education & training; meeting humanitarian needs.

Early in the G.W. Bush Administration, these goals were modified around three “strategic pillars”  of 1) economic growth, agriculture & trade; 2) global health; and 3) democracy, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance.

Under the Obama Administration, foreign assistance is divided into 35 “sectors” under seven categories, which are: 1) Peace and Security; 2) Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance; 3) Health; 4) Education and Social Services; 5) Economic Development; 6) Environment; 7) Humanitarian Assistance.

More than $58 billion per year goes to foreign assistance through more than 20 federal agencies; roughly $38 billion of that is managed by the USAID and the State Department within the just-described categories.   However, Americans have always given beyond their taxes to support humanitarian causes throughout the world.  It is estimated that private American charitable donations equal about $250 billion each year; 75% of that coming from individuals (corporations are particularly poor philanthropists). 

And, what about that other $20 billion that doesn’t go through the State Department or USAID?   The USA also provides assistance to friends and allies to help them acquire US military equipment and training (about 23% of total US foreign aid).  Foreign Military Financing  (FMF) is a grant program that enables governments to receive US military equipment or to access equipment directly through US commercial channels (most FMF funds support the security needs of Israel and Egypt: F-16 Jet fighters, Apache attack helicopters, and other equipment, like the teargas canisters used against the peaceful demonstrators in the Fahrir Square in Cairo--made right in the good old USA).  Peacekeeping funds are also used to support voluntary non-UN operations and training, especially for the Afghan army.

The total US commitment to international health, particularly HIV/AIDs programs, is somewhat larger than that run through USAID and the State Department when budgets for domestic “non-foreign aid” agencies (like HHS and Labor) are included.  The same is true of Economic Support Fund grants, much of which target countries of importance in the war on terrorism.  ESF funds can be used as cash transfers to help stabilize economies or to service foreign debt.  Let’s not forget that a relatively small 8% of total US foreign assistance is combined with contributions from other donor nations to finance multi-lateral development projects through such international organizations like UNICEF, the UN Development Program and the World Bank.  In addition, there are programs related to foreign affairs that go through the budgets of several other federal agencies, including Agriculture, Energy, HHS, Commerce, Homeland Security, and even Interior.

Conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers demand cut-backs in spending, but because they never target specifics, their generalized cut-talk borders on irresponsibility, and on ideology-based rather than reality-based information.  Once again, a little perspective is helpful: the federal government invested $100 billion (TARP funds in 2008) in Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo in order to prop up the US financial sector, but spends half that on foreign aid. 

So what am I calling for?  Well, in my opinion, the Ron Pauls of this world are on the wrong track!  We don’t need elimination of foreign aid; we need a new way of looking at it and of providing it, because:

--We are too politically-motivated  about who receives our aid, often having to fit or adjust our own goals and objectives for political ends.
----People of other countries are driven to hate us for economic aggression, hypocrisy, and power-mongering through our aid programs.
--We think “money is power” and that commercialism trumps morality.
--We are trying to buy the loyalty, morality, commerce, style of government and fealty of other countries.
--We are perhaps the loudest self-congratulators of our own largesse; we claim goodness because we are generous.
--Our motives are often not seen as charitable but as manipulative; we are not trusted.
--We think our way is best; know little about the rest of the world, and think that our “exceptionalism” means that other countries are not “in the same league.”

These attitudes are not serving us well.  They taint our true humanitarianism and the caring attitudes of our people.  Foreign aid should be an expression of our recognition that the world is not alien; it is our larger community and we do have a basic responsibility for it’s well-being.

We desperately need a new set of priorities for how foreign aid is to be utilized, a well-defined set of goals and objectives, and a system of measurable outcomes that can be evaluated to ensure that our money is being  used to enrich others around the globe and not to exploit them. 

More on this next time.

REPUBLICANS MUST BE CHALLENGED

Now that Republicans have administered a “shellacking,”  President Obama needs to compromise where he can, but most of all, he must start sending bills like the following in quick succession, to challenge Republicans to vote yes or no.  Obama cannot play defense; he cannot simply be reactive to Republican proposals.  He must play offense; he must challenge Republicans on as many important issues as possible or he will face an even stronger GOP in 2012.

+ Substantial Jobs bill with infra-structure repair included; use funds from a pay cut for Congresspersons and others cuts (see below) in Congress’s perks
+ Across-the-board budget cuts by 5%, including all departments, even DoD
+ Balanced budget Amendment including line item veto (build on Oct., 1982; Jan. 1997; Feb. & July 2005)
+ Income Tax reform bill  closing major loopholes favoring the rich and large corporations
+ Health Care Reform  amendments: proposing reforms and including limited Republican concepts: tort reform and across state-line availability.  But also allow Medicare to negotiate drug costs; and make Medicare available to more people
+ Clean energy bill with incentives for alternative sources and reduction of  loopholes/incentives for Big Oil: include one or two Republican ideas
+ ”Sunset” legislation: all programs must have an end date certain
+ Reform of Congress‘s budget: challenge Congress to cut and end certain programs:  Chaplains, limos & drivers, end offices of attending Physicians in both houses (use naval & army doctors to improve VA system instead), end junkets, abolish Office of Former Speakers (and offices of Party Leaders), curb the franking privilege, cut all travel budgets by 30%, cut personal staff, printing. 
+Education reform bill: to force Republicans to deal with the overall Purpose and Mission of public education
+Omnibus Budget bill:  it must be used, not just as a budget bill, but as a platform for forcing Republicans to “put up or shut up”.  It must be strategic in the way money is allocated; it must be political as well as policy-making; it must force change that people can see and feel. 

The President must beat Republicans to the punch; propose some of their ideas before they can get their act together.  But, for every compromise this involves, challenge Republicans to a choice, one of which shows them to be major hypocrites.  Every time Republicans propose discretionary program cuts that will hurt the poor or middle class, counter with an equivalent cut of Congress’ budget

McConnell’s prime objective is to turn the President out of office.  There is no compromise with that kind of attack.  The President must attack Republicans at every turn, and back them into a corner.  It would help to form an attack group (through the DNC) and have them out there attacking everything Republicans try to do, all the time, unrelentingly.  Use surrogates to make the attacks.  The President should stay somewhat above the daily fray, compromising by offering Republican ideas before they do, but making them look bad by getting them to vote against the people and their own conservative principles.  He cannot stay out of it entirely; he has to be the spokesman for Democratic ideals and principles, but he should use the bully pulpit when necessary and appropriate, and when it will pay dividends for him and others in his Party.

Get busy Democrats, and stop letting Republicans set the public agenda!

A Belated “Thank You” (In Jest?)

This is meant to be a belated (facetious) “thank you” to the overwhelming numbers of Independents and Seniors who helped elect the substantial number of Republican/Conservative/Tea Party candidates to the House and the Senate.  You have enabled us to “take back” our failing government and to set this country on its proper course toward smaller and less interventionist government.  And, to think it was so easy to do (especially with all that money that flowed into the Party’s coffers, and that “soft” (often outsider) money that ended up in districts where we needed a bit of help defeating those nasty Democrats).

You have become, perhaps unwittingly, part of a Master Plan to revolutionize this country’s government, and more especially its economy.  This Master Plan has been worked on for years now, going all the way back to that American hero, Ronald Reagan.  It was tested in several countries before being unleashed here with a vengeance during George W’s wonderful tenure.  Some of those countries were in South America, others in the Middle East, and still others in Africa, but perhaps most determinately, in Iraq.

One of the basic requirements for realizing this Master Plan is some sort of shock to a country’s operating systems, through which people’s fears can be exploited.  In this country, some shocks that could qualify would be: 9/11; Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Hurricane Katrina; the BP oil spill; attempted terrorist attacks like the Christmas bomber.  All of these probably had some effect upon your vote because all have been exploited, not necessarily to get you to vote one way or another, but to raise your fears about government intervention, and government inadequacy, and to help the economy along at the same time by building up large businesses and consulting firms around each of these events and their aftermath.

By now you might be asking: what is this Master Plan?  Good question; it deserves an answer. That answer goes all the way back to the New Deal under FDR’s administration, in the sense that this Master Plan is essentially a counter-revolution to all that comprised the New Deal, especially government control of the economy, the restrictions placed on corporations, and the re-distribution of wealth  through corporate taxes and workers’ salaries.  What was needed was a return to a pre-New Deal form of capitalism even less regulated than before the Depression.  The single-minded message was that with the New Deal everything went wrong; the country got off on the wrong track.  To get back what had been lost, a book titled Capitalism and Freedom became the global free-market rulebook, and would eventually form the economic agenda for the neo-conservative movement so evident in the Reagan and Bush years.

The book, by Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago’s Economics Department, laid out a Master Plan for that needed return to economic (capitalistic) freedom.  It is well-summarized in the book, The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein:

“First, governments must remove all rules and regulations standing in the way of the accumulation of profits.  Second, they should sell off any assets they own that corporations could be running at a profit.  And third,  they should dramatically cut back funding of social programs.  Within the three-part formula of deregulation, privatization and cutbacks, Friedman had plenty of specifics.  Taxes, when they must exist, should be low, and rich and poor should be taxed at the same flat rate.  Corporations should be free to sell their products anywhere in the world, , and governments should make no effort to protect local industries or local ownership.  All prices, including the price of labor, should be determined by the market.  There should be no minimum wage.  For privatization, Friedman offered up health care, the post office, education, retirement pensions, even national parks…. Friedman’s vision coincided precisely with the interests of large multinationals, which by nature hunger for vast new unregulated markets…. Friedman’s war on the “welfare state” and ‘big government” held out the promise of a new font of rapid riches-- only this time, rather than conquering new territory, the state itself would be the new frontier, its public services and assets auctioned off for far less than they were worth.”

If any of this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because this is exactly the Plan that holds sway amongst the newly elected conservative Republicans and Tea Party congresspersons to “take back” our government and to enrich the economic standing of our multinational corporations.  And, dear Independent and Senior Citizen, YOU helped make it happen by your votes.  Thanks again.
And by the way, your votes have done something that is precedent-setting for these United States: not only are the multinational corporations a virtual fourth branch of government (as the New York Times asserted), but they are now the government itself, represented by the majority of millionaires in the legislative branch and the  Supreme Court (the Executive branch has been run by millionaires for decades); the Court that recently gave the corporations carte blanch in terms of funding our elections.  Not only that, but the facile transfer of billions more of taxpayer money into the hands of the large corporations, and large “consulting firms,” through lucrative non-competitive contracts with few if any restrictions, is now assured.

Thus, the diversionary propaganda of WMD in Iraq, of socialism in the Executive branch, of government takeover of health care, of  tax increases if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, of the harm to small businesses if the tax cuts are not made permanent, of the transfer of taxpayer money to the welfare state are all a part of the bamboozling of the electorate to draw attention away from what is actually happening: the control of government by the rich, the enriching of multinationals, the contracting of government services to the very men and women who are actually running the government (or were recently in power).
 
Independents and Seniors: YOU have helped all this to happen, and we cannot thank you enough.  Who would have thought that it would be this easy to enact our Master Plan and to take control of the very entity that will enhance and protect our profits.  Thanks to you the New Deal and the welfare state are on their last legs.  We will not let you down; our goal is clear.

WE ARE NOW A “PLUTOCRACY”

YOU DON’T GET IT, if you don’t realize that our Federal Government can no longer be fairly characterized as a “representative democracy”.  After this last election, we now have what can only be characterized as a “Plutocracy“: control of government by the wealthy.  The Presidency has long been controlled by millionaires, the Supreme Court is made up mostly of millionaires and now our Legislative branch is in the hands of the wealthy; they have seized legislative power.  Probably over 50% of the new 112th Congress will be millionaires (counting all their assets, not just what they must disclose), members of  the 1% in this country who can claim that distinction.  Everything the new Congress does will be based to a significant degree on that fact.

And YOU thought you were voting for change?  That’s exactly what you’ll get: the small CHANGE that’s left over after they take their cut!  The first act of the new Congress will be to try to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on a permanent basis; the second act will be to take away what little the middle class can count on by cutting discretionary programs, including the new health care reform benefits; the third act will be an attempt to privatize Social Security and Medicare; the final act will be to get rid of all regulations that restrict or control large corporations, and you will again be the fall guy who pays for their excesses. 

In this last election,large percentages of Independents and Seniors helped make this situation happen by voting against their own best interests.  Now, we can all sit back and watch our resources slowly dwindle as the Plutocrats funnel government tax cuts, incentives and contracts to their wealthy partners.  At the same time, we’ll be left to enjoy inflation, stagnation, and health care denigration as our own assets become the fodder for the Plutocratic “revolution”.  The old depression era slogan may become ours again: “Brother, can you spare a dime?”

And to think Independents and Seniors largely voted for these Plutocrats because you thought they would “reform” our government by taking it back for “US”.  How wrong can you be?  They took it back all right, but not for the 98% of us who are below - way below in most cases - the income level of $250,000 per year.  As you pay your taxes this year, think about numerous large houses of gigantic proportions, of luxury cars, of yachts, of lavish parties, of trips abroad, of luxurious clothes and sparkling diamonds, housekeepers and gardeners and much, much more.  Not yours -- theirs!  You will be sending your tax dollars to the care of these Plutocrats who will surely spend it in the pursuit of all these accoutrements.  (Oh sure, there are some who are relatively good public servants touting their concern for the middle classes, but why do we still have homelessness, poverty, inadequate care for returning soldiers, inadequate public schools, home foreclosures, high unemployment, health care costs that bankrupt many, right along with the highest profits and largest bonuses for the big corporations, insurance companies, wall street brokers?  Because those “good” public servants still know on which side their bread is buttered!). 

Finally, don’t be misled by the (largely) Republican cover story that the tax cuts for the 2% should be made permanent because this number includes small business owners and job creators!  As Pearlstein of the Washington Post put it:  “This is simply hogwash, as a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office concluded.  For starters, the job-creating prowess of small business is largely a political myth - particularly so in the recent downturn in which small businesses have accounted for a disproportionate share of the job losses.  More significantly, any firm that has taxable profits of over $1 million is unlikely to be a struggling small business so starved for cash that a modest increase in tax rates would prevent or discourage it from hiring a profit-producing new employee.”  And the same goes for the “job creators” -- the millionaires who run larger firms: they are not going to resist hiring and job creation if it adds to their bottom line!  Besides, a substantial number of the 1% of millionaires and billionaires are no longer in the job-creating sector: they make their millions through investments (like Warren Buffett0. 

So, stop being bamboozled by rhetoric.  The wealthy are in charge.  The voters put them there and now will have to pay for their own voter folly!  Our government has been taken back; BUT not by the average citizen.  It is now totally in the hands of millionaires - Plutocrats - who have little in-depth regard for the needs of the vast 98% of us.  Old Ben Franklin must be spinning in his grave: he thought we could have a representative democracy of shopkeepers and farmers and printers, and artisans and deep thinkers.  Because of our lack of vigilance, and our reluctance to change the current election system, we have created a plutocratic monster that no longer resembles Ben’s dream.  Pray to God we haven’t lost it forever!

One Man’s Initial Attempt to Define the Purpose of Public Education

We have spoken of the need to reach back beyond the rhetoric about public education in this country to ask “What is the Purpose of Public Education?”  We have also mentioned the necessity of emphasis on teaching and learning as two critical parts of educating.  In addition, we have mentioned the importance of the involvement of more citizens in this process, with schools becoming centers of lifelong dynamic learning.  Without further ado, let me introduce what could, at the very least, be a basis for discussion of a general Purpose for our public education system:

“To involve an entire community of learners (administrators, teachers, students, parents, volunteers and other interested citizens) in the teaching of traditional and foundational curricula (history, English, mathematics, science, language, art, technology); at the same time drawing out experiential learnings  and discovering talents, concepts, beliefs, values and facts (some that may have been lost, concealed, suppressed or forgotten) in order to produce responsible and 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.”

If we had such a common Purpose for all public education, what could we reasonably propose as strategies for accomplishing such a purpose?

First:  we would have to hope that States and local school boards would be encouraged to set goals and strategies based on such a Purpose for their local systems, according to what each could reasonably accomplish, and fund!
Second: it would make sense to emphasize the community nature of teaching/learning by involving each teacher-learner in the development of an Individual Education Plan (with input from fellow teacher-learners) that would serve as the basis for a commitment to lifelong learning and discovery.
Third:  work on development of public and chartered specialized centers of teaching/learning that will provide a wide variety of school choice for students and parents; in fact, student-learners might even attend different schools for specified periods of time, depending on his or her individual goals and needs;
Fourth:   develop teaching and learning centers that will be beehives of citizen activity for the community, involving parents, mentors, volunteers and community “teachers” who will provide actual examples of experience, skill and talent as “experience teachers”;
Fifth:   bring teacher-learners to the community and the community to the teacher-learners so that all persons involved will become concerned citizens.  This must be expanded to on-the-job training, internships; learning about work places; plus having workers and executives involved in sharing expertise and personal experience with the teacher-learners.
Sixth:  involve “students” in teaching other teacher-learners;  everyone must be seen as having something to offer others; this is where self-esteem is built.  We all have a stake in teaching and learning; “dropping out” of school must be seen as a loss not only to the individual, but to all of society, particularly to the teaching/learning community. 

What would a new teaching/learning paradigm class look like?
First: it might be in a schoolroom, but just as likely in a community setting like a museum, business, religious center, library, college, park, conference center, all depending on the learning that is being sought.
Second: there will be ergonomic furniture that is adaptable to various configurations, depending on the mode of teaching or learning that is involved;
Third: there will be more people in the room than just students and teachers: mentors, tutors, aides, learning supervisors, parents, and guests might be interacting with each other and with students
Fourth:  lecturing or Socratic questioning will be used only when either can contribute to learning; methods of imparting knowledge or drawing out learnings will vary, and the lead facilitator (formerly known as “teacher”)  will bear responsibility for developing a team methodology and input that will lead to group as well as individual learning based on IEPs.
Fifth:  learning will be a mutual endeavor:  all will be teachers and all will be learners; therefore communications between others in the room will reflect this mutual endeavor: it may be noisy (requiring sound-deadening material in walls and ceilings).
Sixth: there may be diverse stations or learning kiosks throughout the room, so that research and teamwork, and special projects may be done in a particular space; some learners may be out of the classroom in other areas (library, media room, computer room, etc), and, in order to build personal responsibility and integrity, there will be no passes needed; however, there will be a responsibility to the classroom community to sign-out or sign-in just to learn to use time responsibly and to determine where people are in case they are needed.  But let’s get rid of forced dependence and conformity; we need responsible independence and inner integrity to dictate actions.
Seven:  testing and grading are always difficult concepts to change, but change they must.  In a teaching/learning community, testing must be based on IEPs, not on a standard set by someone outside the teacher-learner.  Grading must be a community exercise: teacher-learners must grade themselves based on their own IEP and their own goals; then the community teacher-learners need to give their input based on how they see the progress being made.  IEPs then need to be adjusted to reflect whatever changes, advances, goals and challenges are needed.
Eighth:  bullying from anyone toward anyone else cannot be tolerated; it is a destructive denial of the importance and uniqueness of each member of the teaching/learning community;   
Ninth: in case it is still unrecognized from all of this, let me emphasize that such a Purpose changes almost everything; especially current ways of doing education because it calls for new attitudes and questioning of established ideas and concepts.  Indeed, I can’t even begin to list all of the changes that might potentially happen if such a Purpose were to be adopted nation-wide!

Searching for an Educational Purpose Statement

 

We have spoken of the need to reach back beyond the rhetoric about public education in this country to ask “What is the Purpose of Public Education?” A similar concern is expressed by Walt Kelly who wrote  “Common Sense, A New Conversation About Public Education” to focus public attention on what he believed to be a crisis in our society:

“Is the operating purpose of public education today still a workable premise?  We are caught in a flurry of tactics and never question the premise.  What is the purpose of public education today?  Almost all of the education reforms that the experts propose have some merit.  Yet our public education is still failing our children and our society because today’s purpose of public education is outdated.
The educational model of today evolved with the Industrial Revolution and was designed to produce a new kind of worker: patriotic, civic minded, and obedient to authority.  It is demonstrably not working.  What’s more, it cannot work again in the future.  The entire context for learning is radically different than it was in the 1830’s when our current purpose for public education was born.  We cannot solve this crisis with remedial actions based upon our old map of reality.  We must develop a new and national purpose of public education…that would again produce schools that offer hope and opportunity to their children and communities.”

What follows is one man’s attempt to find the elements that might inform such a Purpose.

From an article titled “School: the story of Public Education in America” on PBS.org, we find a beginning statement of some goals that have been held over time for public education:

To prepare children for citizenship
To cultivate a skilled workforce
To teach cultural literacy
To prepare students for college
To help students become critical thinkers
To help students compete in a global marketplace

In my humble opinion, these various goals make an assumption which may be part of the problem with public education:  all of them assume that students can only be taught.  There seems to be no part for the student to take in his/her own education or learning.  That, it seems to me, is a problem; a problem that needs to be addressed as part of any purpose for public education.  A student writer expressed it this way:
“The heart of the problem is something much more fundamental – that is, the roles of students and teachers. The common belief seems to be that schools should be like a factory. The teachers are the workers, and the students are the products. Ideally students are supposed to sit down, shut up, and absorb whatever the teacher pours into their heads. The idea is to produce as many contributing members of society as possible – a noble goal, but a horrendously misguided approach.
Why not create a system where students are partners with teachers in their own education? Where they are not supervised at all times? Where they can have some measure of control over their own education, and the responsibility that comes along with it?  Many students today correctly view education as something that is forced upon them, which is why so many react poorly to it. Were students truly given a stake in their own education, I believe that they would rise to the occasion.
I know firsthand that students are capable of so much more than school expects of us, yet many of us are not capable of what they do expect of us – unquestioning obedience, dependent thinking, and conformity. If we are ever to see any improvements in education, the bar must be set higher, for both student and teacher alike.”

Dictionary definitions of “education” concentrate on a similar process of imparting something: 1)  the process of training and developing the knowledge, mind, character, etc., especially by formal schooling; teaching; training; 2)  knowledge, ability, etc., thus developed; 3)  a) formal schooling at an institution of learning b) a stage of this (a high school education)  4) systematic study of the methods and theories of teaching and learning.  The basis of the word educate is ‘educare’ from the Latin to bring up, rear or train; but ‘educere’ from the Latin also means to lead or draw out or bring out. So apparently there is another process involved in education which is the drawing out or bringing forth of something.  Another definition of educate is to form and develop (one’s taste, etc.).  Possibly, there is more than one process involved in education: teaching or training, and drawing out.

Perhaps, we need to look beyond “education” to the word “learn” or “learning.” One definition is “to get knowledge” by study, experience, instruction, etc.  Another is to come to know (to learn what happened).  For synonyms, the word “ascertain” implies a finding out with certainty or careful inquiry; experimentation; research, etc.; “determine” stresses the intent to establish facts exactly to resolve doubt;  “discovery” implies a finding out by chance, exploration, etc. of something already existing; “unearth” implies a bringing to light of something, by diligent search, that has been concealed, lost, or forgotten.

Have we, in some sense, been bamboozled by the forces in favor of educating children only by “teaching” “instructing” “training” because anything else is too “messy”?  Have we given in to the forces of order, discipline, obedience, conformity and dependence, thereby avoiding the issues involved in also emphasizing self-discipline, constructive criticism and questioning,  non-conformity and independence; in other words, avoiding a balance in our educational system between teaching and learning?  I firmly believe that to be the case.

Thus, in my opinion, we must offer some additions to the purpose listing from PBS, above.

-To encourage, nurture and enhance the natural talents, skills and dispositions of all learners
-To provide the atmosphere in which students can develop their own educational aims and goals with input from internal and external resources
-To develop a milieu in which all in public educators (administrators, teachers and students) are considered learners for a lifetime
-To provide a spectrum of educational choices to every learner so that “schooling” will meet their individual aims and goals

Adding these to the PBS list, we have what amounts to a multi-purpose statement.  On the one hand, we must teach (input, instill, inculcate, etc) the basic building-blocks of our heritage: math, language arts, history, civics, etc. so that our young people can be given the knowledge they need to do all those necessary things for themselves and their country:  prepare for a good job, be a good citizen, become critical thinkers, be able to compete in a global workplace, become culturally literate.  On the other hand, we must learn how to learn and how to make learning the basis for a new paradigm:  drawing out talents and skills, research, experimentation, chance, discovery, lifetime learning, and full participation must all be part of our national education purpose.

Then the question becomes:  Can we do all of this?  And, the answer is: not under the current circumstances; not with the current mindset; not with the current funding formulas; not with the current buildings; not with the current 19th  & 20th century models, methods and materials. And yet, all of those are the obstacles that we keep funding and keep touting and keep tweaking! 

So, with all that in mind, what can we do to bring about a new purpose, a new paradigm, for our public education system?  In our next blog, we will try to define such a purpose with some ideas as to how to  implement that purpose.

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.