Americans sure know how to lay back, relax and have a good time.   But there seems to be something missing from this birthday celebration.   We need some kind of storytelling and ritual and recapture the meaning of the day.  We have all the festivities but none of the fundamentals.  Just what do we celebrate on this birthday?

We are bombarded with birthday images: soldiers marching, bands playing, beach walkers, bar-b-ques, fireworks displays, flags waving and people crying. These are all great symbols.  But why do some cry?  Where’s the story-telling? Where’s the history? Where’s the meat?

At most birthday parties one gathers family and friends for a celebration.  There are games in which one can laugh and learn.  There are decorations and hats to draw us together.  There are gifts.  There is cake.   But there is ritual—we make a wish and blow out the candles.  Or there’s a ritual “spanking” with a “pinch to grow an inch.”  There’s  story-telling.  The older members remind the younger ones about when Mary or Joey was born. Her dad was doing this and mom was doing that.  The world looked like this and here’s what life looked like in those days.  There’s a passing-on ritual.  This day’s important because Joey or Mary came into it.

Where’s our story-telling on the 4^th of July?  Announcing the parade isn’t enough.  Blowing out candles isn’t enough.  How do the elders engage the youngsters in the meaning of the day?  Where are the questions?  What are the answers?

In a recent testing of the high school seniors of the state of Arizona, only 4% were able to achieve a passing grade (70%) on the Immigration and Naturalization test for citizenship; the test has a number of questions specific to American history and the 4^th of July. Only four percent!  If these natural-born citizens were just coming to America they couldn’t legally get in.  And these are the government schools. Well, if it’s not being taught in the schools (and I think most parents presumed it  was), then we need some sort of national or family ritual to remind of us what the 4^th of July is really all about.

The form of this ritual could be many.  But like any good lesson, it should have a beginning, middle and end.  And like any good lesson, it should have as many modalities as possible: sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell.   We currently have a lot of sights and smells with fireworks and the like (and bar-b-ques).  But what do we want our kids to know?  What’s the lesson?

There has to be music; there has to be a song or two.   There are many; they are legend.

There need to be symbols.  Why 13 red and white stripes on the flag? Why red? Why white? Why 50 stars? Were there always 50? Why the blue background?  Why do we honor the flag?  What does it symbolize?  There have to be questions and answers…specifics. Why tea?

Somewhere in this ritual of remembrance there should be a discussion about the lowly penny and the lowly dollar bill—each the smallest denomination in our coin or paper currency.  Yes, there’s a presidential sense of history on the penny with Lincoln’s portrait so prominently displayed. But it’s in the details of the small print on the back that I think we find America:  E pluribus unum.  From many—one.

At the heart of this celebration is the fact that, as a country, we are one.  The very heart of America is to celebrate that “oneness.”  Indeed, very nature of government should focus only on that fact: we are one.  If we dwell on why each of us is different, then we lose.  American is a country  where we choose to be one, not because of a religion or nationality, appearance or color, family history or entitlements. We are one because of an idea.  What separates us is easy to see; in fact, it’s too easy—it’s obvious.  Getting past the obvious takes work; it takes time and ritual.

We need to somehow examine the dollar bill, not because it’s money, but because of the myriad symbols it contains. We need to ask and answer: what does “novus ordo seclorum” mean?  What is this “new order of the  ages?”  Why is it new? Is it because of what’s written on the penny?

We need to note that “in God we trust.”  We.

The 4^th of July is the celebration, the birthday really happened the day before; our Declaration of Independence was signed on July 3^rd.  But what’s significant is that it had no meaning until it was read and absorbed by the people. We, the people. Not you and me… we.  The very birthday celebration is a party about us… about “we.”  Maybe that’s the heart of our ritual, maybe that’s at the heart of the Declaration.

We need a celebratory food in our ritual; maybe a cake will do.  The very ritual of eating symbolizes a choice not just to enjoy a baker’s delight but a willingness to share in this feast and to share in the fact of this country. We choose… we.   And when we finally blow out the candle/s on  our cake, we should make a wish and it should be aloud.  What is your wish for your country?  Not the politicians or pundits… what’s your wish?

I wish that people will come to know our country and its Constitution.  They are hinged in history and have historical roots and meaning.  That despite political attempts to sabotage, subvert or alter its meaning, the Constitution is the locus around which we grow and live.

We need a Birthday ritual that’s more than candle-blowing, parade-watching and hot dog eating.  We need to tell the story about an unique history and moment in time.  We need to tell the story about us… we.

P.S.  Just after World War II had ended in the Pacific, my parents were enjoying a 4th of July fireworks show in Pasadena, California.  My folks had to leave the show late in the evening.  They went to St. Luke’s hospital.  It was my birthday, too.

When I hear the word “bailout” I’m immediately reminded of the likes of Spencer Tracy having to leave his burning B-25 aircraft after a treacherous but successful raid on some synthetic rubber plant in Tokyo during World War II.  One after the other, the crew leaves the crippled ship, each gliding to safety and a hopeful future under the open canopy of their parachute.  The parachute silk in WWII was white; I’m thinking Ms. Weingarten was thinking more along the lines of a golden parachute, one that protects the adults, but not the students.

 The other image is of that forlorn lifeboat adrift in mid-Pacific.  In high waves and troubled seas, the captain gives the order for everyone to “bail.” All hands muster the energy to remove water from their craft and thus save them all; all try to avoid this harmful situation.  The first rule of sailing is that you cannot run from the wind, you face the music, trim your sails and carry on.  But in the case of Weingarten’s ship of state I have to ask, “Who’s really being saved by this magic bullet bailout?”

Since the early 50s, state teachers’ unions have lobbied, threatened and sued to place their funding (salaries that amass into union dues) as a percentage of each state’s fiscal budget—automatically.  They’ve spent years bloating their budgets to provide what he describes as this “well-rounded education.” Now that the states experience the need to tighten belts, spend less and be more transparent stewards of these fiscal responsibilities, the unions cry, “That’s not fair; we need more.” Why?  It’s for the children.

The author echoes her worst fears throughout his piece.  There will be “sharp reductions (in teachers),” “cutting to the bone,” “eliminating classroom teachers,” “teachers and other school personnel will receive pink slips.”  A good crises is, indeed, a terrible thing to waste.  Ever notice that so-called cuts never seem to occur to the credentialed teachers who don’t have a classroom; in some states there is one “extra” teacher for every classroom teacher.  How come the cuts never reach into the higher echelons of administrators and directors… or union representatives?

Weingarten acknowledges, however, that school reforms are under way, though, “some of the most effective reform efforts in decades.”  Her conclusions about these reforms, however, just don’t follow.  Money is the key to Weingarten’s reforms; money, more money is needed to bring about the changes necessary.

When confronted with the legislative process that government spenders have developed over the years, she cries, “Foul.”  Forget the add-ons, forget the earmarks, forget “everyone’s favorite education initiatives.”  We need a clean bill.  We just need more money.  The funny thing about educational reform and the cry for more money is that we never hear what “enough” really is.  What is adequate? What does it really cost? When is enough enough?   We’re spending close to $25,000 per student in the nation’s capitol and reaping what?  Number one in spending, 51^st of 51 states and the District of Columbia in academic progress.  How much more is needed to achieve these taunted reforms of which she speaks?

They had a solution to the academic achievement  problems in DC up through this year; it cost about one-third of the current spending.  When Congress and the Obama administration cancelled the Washington Scholarship Fund, they rang a death knell for the next generation of students in DC.  They cancelled it for political reasons.  So much for the education of the public.

The union boss goes on to suggest that “public schools” are like Wall Street—they’re too big to fail. But failure in this case is not so much due to the recent downturn in the state economies.   Failure has occurred because of the four-fold spending increases that have occurred since 1983, a period in which the student population only increased by about nine percent.  This “well-rounded” spending matrix is at the heart of the problems/crises experienced by schools.  To suggest that they’re too big to fail borders on the height of arrogance and chutzpah. This is one of the problems.

Now don’t get me wrong.  We must support and protect the education of the public in America. But that doesn’t mean that we continue to make the same mistakes year after year.  Our students deserve better; we all deserve better  The problem is that the monopoly that is called “public education” in American has absolute no resemblance to the economic conditions that make this country great.  There is little to no competition and there is no choice in the matter.  What we have in American schooling more closely resembles the nineteenth century Prussian state, or more recently the five-year plan of the failed Soviet Union.  Coerced attendance, forced placement and no recourse are not the stuff of the American dream.  Most government schools and school systems have become iatrogenic: they tend to foster the very problems they were designed to overcome.  But look at what Florida’s achieved.

Florida’s fourth-grade, low poverty Hispanic kids are currently scoring higher in reading and math than the entire fourth grade averages of at least 15 other states.  They didn’t achieve this remarkable success because they kept asking for more money.  On the contrary, the legislature and governor got behind a complex serious of reforms that attacked the core obsolescence of years of draconian spending, false reporting, and coerced failure.  They ended social promotion, they linked promotion to the passage of certain testing protocols, they gave parents transparent measures about their own school’s progress and they gave families a broad and real choice in the education of their children.  It’s a model I highly recommend.

While she does tug at the heart strings, Ms. Weingarten’s piece is biased toward her own agenda not necessarily the truth, her sense of the social structure of America’s government education is skewed only toward adults, her grammar and syntax lean on hyperbole, and a Clintonian-spin of the facts.

It’s time for a change. But change won’t occur in a magic-bullet sort of way.  Real, systemic change can only occur from within—from the people—the parents of kids in school.  Legislatures might flirt with the ideas, but fundamental adjustment and changes will be born at the local level when people exercise choice to educate America’s public. It’s time we abandon the man-overboard drills every funding cycle and finally invest in every child in America by giving them the wherewithal and the ability to choose a school they wish for their children.

The authors indicate that what follows are a parent’s fundamental rights as a parent in this state.  They even go so far as to say that the contents of this new Chapter 6 are not exclusive, that is, they are only part of a parent’s inalienable rights.  Now those are heavy-weight words, constitutional-type words.  Inalienable means these rights cannot be transferred to another or surrendered except by the person possessing them.  The only person who has these rights is a parent.  No one else can presume to share in this authority unless a parent specifically transfers that right.  What are these rights?

Only parents may direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children.  This means that only parents may direct their children’s education without obstruction or interference by any official of the state.  Parents have the right to access and review all records relating to the child… all records.  It means that only parents are responsible for the moral or religious training.  All health care decisions fall to the parent.  Government agencies must seek out a parent’s signed permission prior to exercising anything that would infringe on these rights.

Obviously, this does not allow a parent or guardian to engage in any behaviors that are unlawful or that abuse or neglect children in violation of the law. 

But Chapter 6 goes a bit further.  It specifies that any attempt to encourage or coerce a minor child to withhold information from his/her parent is grounds for the discipline of an employee of the state.  It seems that no one or nothing should stand between a child and her/his parents.  Wow!

There are restrictions on the procedures used to include materials and programs in a (government) school’s curriculum.  Parents have the right to opt in to specific sex education curriculum for their children; opting in means that the district cannot presume to include their children without prior written permission. Parents have a right to know of the competency requirements to promote a student from one grade to the next.  Parents have the right to review all courses of study and textbooks.   

The authors include a prohibition against what is called “mental health screening.”  Without a parent’s permission, this exercise could constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor; this is serious stuff.

Chapter 6 requires (government) school districts to establish procedures whereby parents may be apprised of their rights under this new code as well as all the laws of the state.  They are also directed to develop the process by which children may be withdrawn from any learning material or activity that is deemed harmful by the parent because it questions beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion. I only hope that whatever procedures are chosen are better than that two inch thick envelope given on the first day of school, a day fraught with confusion and chaos.  And I pray that permission slips are distributed and collected as needed throughout the year, not once-and-for-all up front in the beginning of the year.

Arizona’s new chapter could as easily be called “parenthood.”  This is a lot of the stuff of being a parent.  But the code is correct in this regard: it places this awesome responsibility clearly on the shoulders of the primary educator—the parent—and no one else.  I believe the Arizona Legislature got this one right. It seems rather obvious. I encourage you to read the entire section.

One has to wonder, though, why the voting record in both the House and Senate were split on this issue and the reasons why the lawmakers had to author this common sense language in the first place.

There are a lot of ideas captured in this debate.  Should we add 18% to the state sales tax?  It might raise an additional $900 million; it will probably increase the deficit by $1 billion.  We’re told that if the tax increase fails, a lot of programs could be cut.  There’s great theater in the airways. Citizens are smothered in hyperbole and extremes.  But peel back the onion and things start to look simpler and simpler.  Remove the layers of scorched-earth politics, remove the fencing and jousting over importance and public prominence. Remove the fear-mongering.  Clarity is what we need. It comes down to simple things.

 Einstein once said, ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’ In 1985 the voters approved a temporary transportation tax (Prop. 300).  Guess what? “Temporary” extended through 2009.  We were asked in 1998 to approve a two-year tax to help fund jails. This “temporary” tax has been extended until 2022. That was Proposition 411 in 2002. We’re told that this cannot happen this time because it’s a Constitutional mandate. We’re told…

 There are two sides to any budget: income and outgo, income and expenditures, assets and liabilities. There are only two ways to do a budget (assuming you do one):

1. Match your revenues with your projected expenditures; or
2. Match your expenditures with your projected revenues.

It comes down to: “Here’s what you’ve got to spend.” Or, “Here’s what you’ve got to earn.” The important question is where do you start: income or expenses?  A healthy budget has a balance between determined expenditures and anticipated revenues. Hidden in the deep recesses of any budget, however, is a nagging question.  Should I spend what I make or save some for a rainy day?  And if so, how much?  Does the word surplus exist in your budget?  Should I ever spend more thanI make?  On what items should I ever borrow?

 Economics 101: 

1. The Government cannot make money.  They can print it and they can spend it, but they cannot make it.
2. Government develops revenue through taxes. 
3. All tax revenues come from the private sector.
4. If the government marginalizes the private sector by adding more taxes, it cuts into the very source of revenues that could be taxed.  It cuts into its own income.

What would the schools do if we went to a flat tax?  They would have to develop an actual budget that demonstrated planned costs.  Their plans would be a function of funds available—that, incidentally, is exactly where they are in this debate—especially if Proposition 100 fails.  

It’s been revealed in the Proposition 100 debates that government agencies spend more than $9 million of our tax monies to lobby the government. If we already said these services are important and they have officers and agents that can make their case before the legislature, then by do we pay government lobbyists to lobby government legislators?  Here’s a $9 million savings.

The bigger problem is that the Prop. 100 debate is only a band-aid on a bleeding femoral artery.  What happens when 2013 rolls around and the changes necessary have not been implemented?  We all know that repeating an action is far less difficult that doing it the first time.  Heck, it’s almost a habit by then. The passage of Proposition 100 only delays the inevitable argument for another two or three years.  Systemic remedies are needed in the mean time.

Lincoln once said:  “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.”  It seems that Lincoln’s common sense and thrift is what we’ve needed for years.  Look where their lack has lead us.  Common sense says “No” to raising taxes during a recession/depression.  Common sense says “Do with less.”

The pro-Proposition 100 campaign says we need to “Protect Education and Public Safety”.  Protect them from what?  Will some threat level suddenly rise in the absence of Prop. 100 revenues?  For kids in Arizona’s government/union schools, how could it get any worse? One out of three won’t make it to 12^th grade.  If they do get to 12^th grade with Bs and As and try to go on to college, 50% of them will have to take remedial courses just to stay in college. 60% of the students applying at community colleges will have to take remediation courses.  More money has never been the solution in education.  In fact, it’s more money that’s got them where they are today.

All in all, Proposition 100 is the wrong idea at the wrong time.

When I think of stakeholders several images and ideas come to mind.

The first image is that of the crusty sourdough miner from the 1800s in California seeking his fortune in the Sierras.  When he discovers a lode, he promptly pounds a stake into the ground with the dimensions of his claim and other personal information. He then scurries off to the closest agency through which he can register that claim. “This is my dirt; whatever’s in it belongs to me.”

 For me, this is probably the simplest paradigm for education, your own education.  It’s solitary, it’s entrepreneurial. It’s what you make of it. Your hard work is the stake; your future is what you make of it.  It was the status of education in American from pre-colonial through post civil war times. It was singular, private and familial.  If you happened to choose to attend a school, that was your doing (or your parents’). But there was no obligation, no force, no compulsion of law.  Common sense told you that this claim was the root of your future and fortune.  But there are foreshadows of third-party claim-jumpers hidden in this history.

 The second image is that of the Oklahoma Land Rush.  In 1893 certain tracts of land were available on a first-come-first-served basis for free…to anyone.  All the contestants had to do was be at the starting line by such-and-such a time, race to the aforementioned territory and, upon finding your dream lot, secure it by driving a stake in the ground in each of the four corners… this while the other 99,999 folks raced for the same 42,000 plots of land.  It’s interesting to note that the land “given away” was Cherokee tribal land once granted by the US government to the native Americans, but which became the spoils of war after the native uprisings. “Sooners” were the folks who cheated and snuck in the night before to stake a claim to the choicest lots.

 This second image starts to resemble the modern reality of education in America. Those sod-buster stakeholders include kids and families, but like the modern reality, they also include government and union agents.  The two-party system in American education was born here. There was subsidy for the rich(er)—the “Sooners” got the best choices because they moved into the best neighborhoods; and there was free enterprise for the poor—the rest had to do with whatever lots were left. The parents who get the best lots today tend to get the best school  districts (or so we’re told).

 But it was the government who defined the race, defined the conditions and determined the outcome. Part of that independence and entrepreneurial spirit of the sourdough miner is being worn away by government definitions and government doings.

 The modern experience of government largesse—government grants, especially from Washington, is truly a dash for the cash.  And when it comes to education in America, that’s all Washington can do—give away money.  But it’s always a Faustian bargain because with the shekels come the shackles. Government local and state superintendents compete with Washington for the money that was theirs originally—it was state money, state taxes which came from private enterprise–but it’s been redistributed to those with the fastest horses and rigs.

 No longer is it the individual who stakes a claim on the future. It seems somebody else stakes the claim; students are just along for the ride.  The government has established the starting line, game time, pre-planned plots of expectation and outcome, and rules of the race.  Tally Ho!

 The Law Dictionary defines a stakeholder as:  “a third party chosen by two or more persons to keep in deposit property or money the right or possession of which is contested between them, and to be delivered to the one who shall establish his right to it.” When John Stygles and I used to wager on the outcome of our feats of strength and tests of courage in the 7^th and 8^th grade, it was usually Susan Walker who held the coins; she was our third-party stakeholder.

 Who are the educational contestants in today’s modern America?  Who holds the wagers? It’s sad to say but I believe the core of educational efforts in American in the 21^st century comes down to a contest between students and teachers. But I don’t mean teachers individually, as professionals.  I’m referring to “the teachers” when they gather and are mentioned in government documents and by their union leaders.  The policies of today come down to a consideration between who wins: students or teachers.  And isn’t that sad.  It’s either educational success for kids or full-employment for some adults.  The problem is that the government unions (teachers’,  school board associations’, and superintendents’) all hold the wagers.  No matter who wins, they make a living—make a profit.  I don’t think the unions are stakeholders as much as they are bookies.  

 According to the Investor Daily, other than traditional business, “a stakeholder may also be concerned with the outcome of a specific project, effort or activity, such as a community development project or the delivery of local health services. A stakeholder usually stands to gain or lose depending on the decisions taken or policies implemented.  Therefore, a stakeholder is anyone who may be affected by a decision.” In the modern world that’s just about everyone.

 But how do you sort out the various beliefs and define the “good” in American education?  Who gets to make that decision?  Who gets to choose the curriculum or textbooks? Who is the ultimate stakeholder?  The battle for governance in America has spilled over into education.  Educational futures are being held hostage to the politics of the day.  It’s each parent who has to make this decision on behalf of their child/ren.  It’s the parent who holds this soul in the palm of their hands.  It’s the parent who should be holding the stake.

 As education goes, so goes America.  The authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution knew that a Constitutional Republic would not stand the test of time without an educated citizenry.  They knew that America itself would be a stakeholder in this contest.  What did those framers do about it?  Nothing!  That’s right, nothing.  They left this extraordinary opportunity and obligation exactly where it belonged—with the first stakeholders–parents and individual students.  It’s up to them to choose—common sense demands it.  But unfortunately, the bureaucrats and politicians have turned the education of the public into “public education.”  The former is not happening; the latter is well funded.

 Finally, according to Marios Alexandrou, “stakeholders are the end-users or clients, the people from whom requirements will be drawn, the people who will influence the design and, ultimately, the people who will reap the benefits of your completed project.”   The project is education. Who reaps the benefits? Students.  Who will influence the design? Students.  From whom will requirements be drawn?  Students.  Who are the end-users? Students.

 When one examines the various Washington government grants to the states, there’s hardly a mention of these end-users.  There’s hardly a mention of the voices of their parents.  They might collect an opinion from a PTA organization, but this is not the voice of parents. Union teachers’ voices are heard.  Superintendents are heard.  Principals are heard.  Directors, leaders, associates and assistants are heard.  But not the students.

 Because of the vast amounts of money involved, I think Washington may be confusing a stakeholder with a shareholder.

 Solution:  Since we are all stakeholders in the education of America and because students are the ultimate end-user and stakeholder, the best and only role of the government is to provide opportunities not solutions.  Give each sourdough student a grubstake with which to make something of himself/herself.  Give each student the opportunity to choose an education and it doesn’t matter where it occurs.  Other stakeholders will scramble to provide the opportunity and share in the riches of that success.

Or… “Robbing Iniki to pay Pele.”

For those not familiar with either, Iniki is the name of the famous hurricane that passed dead-center through the island of Kauaii on 9/11/1992.  We’re told that one could not find a frog on that devastated island for five years hence.  Pele is the goddess of the volcano. Prior to the arrival of Captain Cook in January of 1778, the Hawaiians held blood-letting sacrifices to Pele by tossing virgins (male and female) into the fiery calderas—this was to atone, appease, or appeal. Kids in Hawaii are still being thrown into the fires today, albeit political fires.  I’m not sure which burns brighter but a sacrifice is still a sacrifice.

 Governor Lingle, the state School Board and the teachers’ union are at it… again.  Most of the story was covered in my first blog. But this week’s works again strain credulity. If the state lawmakers would approve, funds would be shifted from the Hurricane Relief Fund to “restore 11 teacher furlough days” next year.  The Hurricane Relief Fund is Iniki, and Pele is the cartel of the teacher’s union, state School Board et al.  The equation is elementary: education + politics = $$$.

 The Hurricane Relief Fund was established as a cushion to provide insurance policies specifically in the event of hurricane damage, insurance that was jeopardized and almost extinct after the fiscal disaster that was Iniki. but something required by law.  If you have a mortgage, you have to have it.  Now, the state policy folks are going to shift $57.2 million of those dollars over so that teachers will go back to work for 11 days next year.  Wow!  Sounds reminiscent of Social Security.  What happens if there is another hurricane in the near future?  Will the teachers and their organizations pay the damages?

 But there’s more to it than the crass politics.  It seems the very “Aloha Spirit” that was once common to the islands is itself being swallowed up by politics.  The politics and reporting seem one-sided.  The Honolulu Advertiser noted that parents in the Save Our Schools organization praised Governor Lingle’s actions and hoped that she would tap into more restricted funds and chase after the stimulus funds from Washington.  No where did they speak about site-by-site investigations to determine where costs could be cut further. It’s been three months.  They noted that the Governor wants “to get the kids back to school this year and the next.”  What about the teachers and the unions?  The governor noted that “they want to return to the classroom.”  But have they?

 There has been a lot of hurt.  Healing is needed.  “Good faith” is being tested in every corner.  More than gestures of support are needed to recapture that Aloha Spirit, that trust that once marked an entire culture.   Above all, there needs to be clarity in their analysis and deliberations. As an example, if parents took their children out of school for the times suggested they could be brought up on charges; but when the unions do that, there’s no consequence. Why is that?  What about the promise of (at least) 180 school days and a “world class education?”  Where’s the voice of the young ones sacrificed in this caldera of conflict?

 Everyone needs to start asking much larger questions?

• What happened to the $600 million surplus in the education budget in 2006-07?
• Isn’t  $12,786.83 per student spending enough to get the job done?  Or maybe we should ask: When is enough enough?  $200,000 per classroom revenues should be sufficient.  Maybe should look elsewhere for cuts.
• Are you getting your money’s worth:
  • 4^th grade reading – 46^th of 50 states; 8^th grade reading – 46^th of 50 states
  • 4^th grade math – 41^st of 50 states; 8^th grade math – 48^th of 50 states.
  • Why would the government want to force children to attend obviously inferior schools when cost-effective alternatives are available, usually on the same block?

 The Enquirer also noted that Hawaii made national news when a group of parents “began a sit-in at the governor’s office in protest of the teacher days.”  They seem to have also forgotten that in education it takes three to teach:  a parent, a student and a teacher.  In government schools, if takes even more: student, parents, teachers, unions.  Why were there no sit-ins at the union offices, at the school board’s offices or outside faculty rooms? You may not have elected them, but they’re part of the government just the same.  Just because they are your neighbors doesn’t make them right!   It’s too easy to find and target a political scapegoat in these matters; the reasons are as complicated as the many kapus in the Hawaiian tradition.

 The history books say that Captain Cook died over an argument dealing with a stolen rowboat.  I think not; he was the captain.  To the people of Hawaii he was considered a god.  I believe Cook was invited to witness one of their sacrifices, the invitation from one god to another; when asked his opinion of what he just saw, Cook probably responded in clear, unambiguous outrage and disdain. They killed him because now he knew.

Like Captain Cook of old, we can no longer allow kids to be sacrificed on the altars of politics and greed.  Parents need other choices.

 The pundits and politicians tell us we need more money to provide them with 21^st century skills.  After a lot of consideration, I offer the following as a benchmark for those skills as one proceeds into high school in America.  This is a 21^st century entrance test to the high school of your choice.  Good Luck

Just go to this Link and proceed:  http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/quizzes/highschool_test.cfm

When you’ve finished, come back here.

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

Don’t peek before you’re done……

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

Welcome Back!

Here’s the point.   The 21st Century skills necessary are really no different than those expected in the 20th, 19th, 18th… centuries.  There are fundamentals to be known in each of the liberal arts.  There is a truth in each.  But our expectations have changed or slipped over time.  We’ve inflated grades and the importance of our associations.  We’ve come to rely more on the technologies of education than the fundamental facts of hard work, dedication and purpose.

All those wonderful gadgets that we experience and use today weren’t created in a vacuum.  Someone thought them up.  Someone developed them. They learned from those who went before and built upon it.  But it’s not just the wonders of these new technological tools.  Developers also had to be able to communicate their ideas to others and “sell” them on the idea. 

The skills that are necessary today are the skills that occasionally get lost in the glamour of new inventions and over time.  According to research, 50% of the students in most of the state colleges and universities require “remediation” courses in order to enter and/or continue.  Research also says that at least 60% of the students entering community colleges today require “remediation” courses.  These are usually in English and Math.  How can it be that B and A average students graduating from high school require remediation of any kind?  

Somewhere in this sad statistic are the skills necessary and are necessary not only from students, but from their teachers and schools as well.

There are a lot of similarities between sailing and schooling. 

• The shadow of the captain/administrator falls on the entire boat/institution. 
• “You can’t run from the wind. You trim your sails, face the music, and keep going.”
• Boats weren’t designed to stay in port and bob at anchor; schools weren’t designed for the adults who work there. 
• If you have a surplus of something on board, you surely have a serious shortage of something else.  
• A successful voyage is to sail from point A to point B; a successful education is the seamless matriculation to the next level of challenge—and is measurable by standardized testing. 
• Sailors know that they must make minute and constant adjustments to their sails; good teachers know that instantaneous adjustments occur every moment of every day—despite the lesson plan. 
• All boats in the water rise and fall with tides.

One of the great sailing contests of all time has become known as the America’s Cup.  One of the great “races” in American schooling has been called The Race to The Top.

The America’s Cup started in 1851, when it was known as the Royal Yacht and Squadron Cup, predominantly a race among and between (wealthy) yacht owners. The new name stuck when the schooner America won in 1957.  The America’s Cup reached its high water mark between 1930-37; this was when the famous J-Class schooners dominated the field.  The America’s Cup between 1930 and 1937 was a race between sailors.  All entrants had the same deck under their feet—success was a measure of what they did with it—the mark of a true sailor. Some won, some lost. 

The Race to the Top is a federal government, 2010 carrot and stick, $4.35 billion competition among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This is a race among educrats. The “awards” are given to those judged to champion the most “robust changes in their educational practices; 40 states and the District of Columbia applied in the first round (of races).  Two states “won.”  This “race” is managed by the US Department of Education (USDOE).

The USDOE had its origins in 1867.  Its stated purpose was to provide data collection and research to provide school districts and schools on best practices throughout the US.  It moved on to provide resources to land grant colleges in 1890 and focus on the serious need for Vocational Education in America’s schools. The USDOE reached its zenith just before WWII.  Since then and like the folks at the America’s Cup, it has developed “races” for designers, fund-raisers and managers.

In 1941 the USDOE oversaw the distribution of Impact Aid; this was assistance to local schools to compensate them for the influx of children into their districts because of the presence of military bases.  The department’s oversight and involvement expanded in the 60s with the Civil Rights agenda of that era, culminating in the establishment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the Johnson-era law that is known in its most recent iteration as the No Child Left Behind Act)—the largest heretofore distribution of money from Washington back to the states. .

Since WWII, the America’s cup has not so much been a race for top sailors but a race for yacht designers, fund-raising acumen and management skills.  American education followed in that wake.  Trophies are given not so much for your sailing ability, but your ability to out-design, out-market and out-manage your opponent.  What once had been a noble tradition to test the skills, wisdom and luck of the sailor deteriorated into a contest of technologies.  They lost sight of why they sailed ships and what the true nature of the sailor is/was.

Finally, in 1980, the Carter administration established a cabinet post for the USDOE in the person of its Secretary of Education.  No longer content to be a lighthouse for schools and educators, the USDOE emerged as the chandler[i] for almost all schools in the US.  Not content with providing sound navigational aids by which to chart a course for schools, the USDOE now wants to design the institutions, define the rules of engagement and determine who gets to sail these ships of state. 

American education sailed into the rocky shoals of politics and favors.  The answer to the question “Why?” is ever so simple.  Religion and education have the two institutions closest to the home.  Since the First Amendment excludes the government from interfering there, they chose the next best thing—the coerced and captured audience known as K-to-12^th grade students.  Politics is now being brought home in the backpacks of America’s kids through programs like The Race to the Top.  Is there a (federal) Constitutional mandate for this involvement?  No!  Is there a Constitutional provision for these “services?”  No!  What’s the wind that fills these sails? Politics.  

In the Race to the Top, one must ask “Who really benefits from these awards?” “All local unions in Delaware backed the state’s bid, while 93% lent their support in Tennessee”—the two top vote-getters in round one. “By comparison, Florida—which is otherwise engaged in one of the country’s most sweeping school overhauls—had the backing of only 8% of its unions.” Florida didn’t place.  But nowhere in this contest is there the mention of students or parents or families.  How were they engaged in the process? 

Remember: If you have a surplus of something on board, you surely have a serious shortage of something else.

Schooling in America used to be about kids, about their success, about their future. American government schooling is more about designer programs, vaulted promises and behind the scenes trading.  Except for the political platitudes spouted around election time, the schooling of kids is incidental to the efforts.

Florida is a fine example of what can be done when the purposes are clear, when the captain gives clear directions, when those who signed-on stay on board through the winds, waves and fog.

We don’t need more designers, fund-raisers or management types on board, we need sailors. Maybe we’ve forgotten why these boats were built in the first place.   Where are the sailors?  Where are the students?

 He died of cancer. 

 Charismatic

 High school teacher

 ”Jaime didn’t just teach math. Like all great teachers,  he changed lives.”

 Escalante gained national prominence in the aftermath of a 1982 scandal surrounding 14 of his Garfield High School students who passed the Advanced Placement calculus exam only to be accused later of cheating.

Escalante was a maverick… he mesmerized students

“His passionate belief [was] that all students, when properly prepared and motivated, can succeed at academically demanding course work, no matter what their racial, social or economic background. Because of him, educators everywhere have been forced to revise long-held notions of who can succeed.”

Escalante’s rise came during an era decried by experts as one of alarming mediocrity in the nation’s schools. He pushed for tougher standards and accountability for students and educators, often irritating colleagues and parents along the way with his brusque manner and uncompromising stands.

He was called a traitor for his opposition to bilingual education.

 He attended a well-regarded Jesuit high school, San Calixto, where his quick mind and penchant for mischief often got him into trouble.

After high school, he served in the army during a short-lived Bolivian rebellion.

 Before he graduated, he was teaching at three top-rated Bolivian schools.

With $3,000 in his pocket and little more than “yes” and “no” in his English vocabulary, Escalante flew alone to Los Angeles on Christmas Eve 1963. He was 33.

His first job was mopping floors in a coffee shop

He enrolled in English classes.

He was promoted to cook,

 He earned a scholarship to Cal State Los Angeles to pursue a teaching credential

He discovered how watered-down the math textbooks were — on a par with fifth-grade work in Bolivia

At his insistence, they studied before school, after school and on Saturdays

The Advanced Placement program ….For many years it was a tool of the elite…

Escalante’s dramatic success raised public consciousness of what it took to be not just a good teacher but a great one.

Ultimate performer in class

 Cracking jokes

 Rendering impressions and using all sorts of props

He liked to be judged by his results

For the whole story, go here:  http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-jaime-escalante31-2010mar31,0,4111731,full.story

Rising from the mire of incredulity, Washington D.C. schools had a solution that worked. Despite spending over $26,000 per student per year and reaping achievements equal to the worst of 51 states and territories, Washington did have a way out of their collective darkness; the light was the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). This demonstrably successful school voucher program—for D.C.’s poorest families—allowed more than 3,300 children to attend the best schools they have ever known.” And they flourished! It was the spring of hope.

But according to OSP leaders, Kevin P. Chavous (former D.C. Councilman) and Virginia Walden Ford (executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice): “House and Senate Appropriators ignored the wishes of D.C.’s mayor, D.C.’s public schools chancellor, a majority of D.C.’s city council, and more than 70 percent of D.C. residents and have mandated the slow death of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. They ignored the research by their own US Department of Education. Kids became another political football for the rich and powerful. America’s two-party system again reared its ugly head: subsidy for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan obfuscated statistical research that kept the true story both from the general public, but especially the decision-makers in Washington. Apparently the Hussein Obama Administration did not wish to honor the facts of this program, facts that clearly showed a way out of the despair that is the Washington DC school system.

These are sad, even dangerous times, because the values that built this American Republic are being turned on their head. Leadership in the city of Washington, the Mayor, the public school chancellor, a majority of the city council said, “Continue the program.” 70% of the folks, the parents and residents of Washington said “Yes” as well. Yet congressional and administration leaders turned a deaf ear to the plight and plea of its citizens. Granted, the city of Washington has a very unique relationship with Congress, in that a Federal agency is responsible for the funding of a municipality directly—since the people of Washington vote for no congressional leader, they’re no one’s constituents so no one feels obliged to listen to them. But maybe that’s just the point. And maybe this is the clarion call to warn the rest of America of things to come in schooling, things to come in this new season of darkness.

The closure of the DC Scholarship Program occurred not because of how we value one another. If we did we wouldn’t simply ignore the voice of 70% of the community. The program wasn’t shut down because of any principles or beliefs. How do you argue with confirmed success, fiscal savings, and the moral roots to reason granted to these 3,300 kids? The program didn’t “die” for economic reasons either; the program clearly saved money. Congressional leaders could not find $50 million to gives kids hope and a chance to break the cycle of poverty in which find themselves. But they could find $3 billion for the Cash for Clunkers program (a bogus trade-in program to “simulate” the economy whose total costs outweighed all benefits by $1.4 billion). No, it all came down to politics—the new American value. Once again government leadership traded the well-being and success of kids for a works program for adults. It seems like government schools were not built for kids. They seem to have been built to house adults. When one examines the model on which they were built, maybe that was the intention all along.

Now to that other city, Chicago. Chicago Breaking News (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/duncans-staff-kept-list-of-politicians-school-requests.html)  reported the other day that former Chicago schools chief and current Secretary of Education Arne Duncan manipulated a system to favor powerful political allies by placing their children in the schools of their choice. That’s odd. This says that Secretary Duncan favors school choice—at least for some. But Secretary Duncan denied choice in Washington. The differences are glaring.

Washington’s OSP was targeted at the poorest. Chicago’s behind-the-scenes system helped the rich and powerful. Washington’s program was based on success; Chicago’s was based on failure (failure to get one’s first choice, failure to move to the correct neighborhood, inability to cross boundaries “legally”).

Chicago’s shadowy appeals process was deep and dark, behind the scenes and clandestine. Rumors abounded for years; these were met with copious denials by the city. Now we find that the rumors were true. School choice was made available for some of the well-healed and highly-placed, the same folks who could probably purchase homes in the “best” districts and/or purchase an education consistent with their wishes. But instead of spending their money, instead of exercising those parental options to support their own children, they leveraged the back door for a favor and got a hand out from the government. Would that everyone had the chance.

Washington’s OSP program was the acme of openness and transparency. We’re at a crossroads in the education of America’s public. Part of that public is receiving schooling in government schools (including government charter schools), some of that public is receiving a sound education in independent, private and religious schools and some of that public is receiving a good education at home.

As in our Tale of Two Cities, it matters not where one receives a good education; what matters is that they do receive that education. It’s time that our government get out of the way of sound education and let the public decide.

We have everything before us if we succeed; we have nothing before us if we fail.