Educators aren’t really trying to help

There’s a problem with education in the US. We spend more than anyone else and get bad results. Then, teachers and their supporters ask for more money while at the same time blocking efforts to make spending more effective. Adding further insult, the education profession is silent on how to improve results in US schools.

Funding is already high
Americans have a solid record of lavish funding for education. A US Department of Education report covering the 2004-5 school year points out, incredibly, that US taxpayers spend more on education than defence: ‘the United States is a world leader in education investment’. The same report provides a helpful chart showing how education spending in the 90s zoomed.

US education spending

In 2011 the University of Southern California school of education compared total annual per-pupil spending among 12 countries. The US exceeded its nearest competitor by 33%.

world education spending

Learning is not happening
Unfortunately, while outspending everyone else, the results are not great. We’ve all heard the horror stories: after 12 years of education kids leave high school unable to write a check or calculate their taxes. According to a CBS News story on New York City schools, “nearly 80 percent of those who graduate from city high schools arrived at City University’s community college system without having mastered the skills to do college-level work.” Of course, it’s not just New York City. A CBS News source in Minnesota reported “A recent study shows that as many as 40 percent of public high school students who enter a public college or university has to take at least one remedial course in reading, writing or math.”

In summary, according to a report from USC’s Rossier School of Education, “The U.S. is the clear leader in total annual spending, but ranks 9th in Science performance and 10th in Math.”

Teachers want more
It may seem that throwing money at the problem is the wrong thing to do, but that’s what education advocates propose. Here’s what the National Education Association says: ‘All of our students, regardless of their zip code, deserve the tools, resources and time to learn. This means resourcing all schools so kids have one-on-one instruction, inviting classrooms, and a well-rounded curriculum.’

I think we’ve all noticed that teachers are better organized around the topics of more pay and less work than on improving classroom effectiveness. Research using US Dept of Labor data shows that when frequency of government work stoppages is ranked by occupation, teachers outrank their nearest competitors better than two to one.

Don’t measure my work!
It’s a basic in management that to improve something you first have to measure it. This is the last thing teachers want. Teachers oppose student testing, and they oppose using test scores in making personnel decisions like setting salaries and hiring/firing; and they do this without offering usable alternatives. We all want to improve education outcomes, at least we all say we want to; but how do we move forward without measuring results and then using that data to make appropriate changes?

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, opposes student testing and has encouraged parents to opt out, sabotaging school districts’ efforts to measure instructional effectiveness and student achievement. She was quoted: “Using test scores to measure teacher effectiveness fosters a tendency to focus not on learning but on improving test scores.” Fine, and using money as a measure of value causes us to focus on the wrong things, too.

This is the NEA position on testing:

Testing takes time from learning. NEA supports less federally-mandated testing to free up time and resources, diminish “teaching to the test,” and allow educators to focus on what is most important: instilling a love of learning in their students…In addition, NEA believes it is essential to decouple high-stakes testing and accountability.

The point of testing is to measure performance. If you oppose testing without offering an alternative, you’re failing to participate honestly in solving the problem.

How to do QA?
How do we perform quality assurance in education? No one seems to have a better answer than testing. Clearly there’s a problem with education in the US. Some of our best universities offer degrees in education: Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Johns Hopkins and so on. The failure to find fixes to the problems of education in the US is an indictment of the profession. Is it possible these universities offer degree programs in education only because there’s a line of willing buyers (financed by loans from the government that they may not pay back) waiting to plunk down thousands of dollars in tuition?

Degree holders in education, and the faculty at education schools in US colleges and universities have to ask themselves what value they’re providing. How can you call yourself a social scientist if you can’t solve problems and identify best practices?

The bottom line
It’s not exactly DISHONEST to ask for more money while going out on strike and resisting efforts to improve, but it is hypocritical.
Asking for more money while refusing to cooperate in making funding effective shows the naked self-interest at play. The failure to find solutions over the course of decades proves the intellectual bankruptcy of the education profession in the US. Educators can deny the reality, but their actions and their failures speak louder than their words.

Friends we betrayed

Two stories of the kindness of strangers…

Over two days in September 1805 a party of 32 people straggled out of the mountains near where Weippe, Idaho stands today. They were all cold, wet and starving. Several had dysentery. They had traveled 160 miles in 11 days westward over the Continental Divide, and toward the end they were eating their own horses and struggling through deep snow. This was the Lewis and Clark Expedition, sent by President Jefferson to explore the route between the Missouri and Columbia rivers.

The expedition was rescued there by Nez Perce Indians, who fed and sheltered them for two weeks. The Nez Perce didn’t have to do that. Stephen Ambrose calls it “the tale of what didn’t happen rather than what did”:

It would have been the work of a few moments only for the Nez Perce to kill the white men and take for themselves all the expedition’s goods. Had the Indians done so, they would have come into possession of by far the biggest arsenal … west of the Mississippi River, along with priceless kettles, axes, hatchets, beads and other trade items in quantities than any of them would ever see in their lifetimes.

The expedition left their horses with the Nez Perce, and a chief guided them on their way down the Snake and Columbia to within 90 miles of where Portland, Oregon is today. Next Spring the expedition returned, retrieved their horses and lived with the Nez Perce for two months, waiting for snow to melt and open the trail back to the Missouri. Once the path back over the Bitterroots opened, the Nez Perce again provided guides.

The Nez Perce kindness was returned in 1877 when the US violated the Treaty of Walla Walla and tried to force the Nez Perce onto a reservation. The Nez Perce fled toward Canada, seeking help first from the Crow and then the Lakota Sioux. Stephen Ambrose claims that some Nez Perce who were children at the time the Lewis and Clark expedition was rescued were among those who fled. The US Army caught the Nez Perce 40 miles south of the Canadian border in Montana. Chief Joseph surrendered, with this speech:

I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohoolhoolzoote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say, “Yes” or “No.” He who led the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are — perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.

The Nez Perce were rounded up and sent to Oklahoma. Eight years later they were allowed to return to the Pacific Northwest, and today the tribe is Federally recognized with about 3,200 tribal members living on the Nez Perce reservation in Idaho.

Fast forward to current times. In August of 2010 President Obama announced the end of the combat mission in Iraq, and US combat troops were withdrawn soon after. Thousands of Iraqi civilians who had worked as interpreters or provided intelligence to the US, were left behind.

My life is now in grave danger due to my service to the US Army. I have survived two car bombs near my home. I have received phone calls and text messages from unknown numbers threatening to put a bullet through my head…I have three young children whom I cannot send to school regularly because they may be kidnapped or killed.

Iraqi visa applicant

To solve the problem, in 2008 Congress created the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa Program, with a parallel program for Afghans. However the program did not work well. There were delays in processing visa applications. Secretary of State John Kerry wrote an editorial published in the LA Times:
Delays in processing applications and lack of transparency in making decisions created problems. Bluntly stated, the process wasn’t keeping up with the demand. … statistics and anecdotes … highlighted unconscionably long processing times for applicants.

According to a press release from the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project:
Congress has since passed seven pieces of legislation urging the Departments of State and Homeland Security to improve processing of these cases, and to require that visa processing be completed within nine months.

In March of 2015 two groups filed suit against the Secretary State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, asking the court to order the administration to process the applications for special visas.

In 2005, the US approved special visas to allow three foreign-born ice dancers to compete in the 2006 US Winter Olympic trials. In 2014 President Obama issued executive orders protecting up to 5 million illegal immigrants. We can’t process visa applications for Iraqis and Afghans who assisted US troops?

These applicants didn’t crash our borders seeking illegal enrichment. They risked their lives in support of US forces, and conscientiously applied for admittance to the US. They promise to be the best sort of citizens. They aren’t lawbreakers. We owe them.

The bottom line
What can we do for the Nez Perce? At least an apology, and an official thank you. How about a reformed, corruption-free Bureau of Indian Affairs?
What can we do for the Iraqi and Afghans who helped the US? Follow through on our promises. I’m sure they’ll make great citizens.

Republicans’ limited government hypocrisy

The passion for smaller government provides one of the sharpest dividing lines between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats universally like big government. Republicans say they like smaller government.

Jefferson’s vision of a “wise and frugal government” must be restored…return government to its proper role, making it smaller and smarter…Limit government. Respect federalism.

— 2016 Republican Party platform

Republicans say their passion for limits on government is based on the constitution. They usually point to the 10th amendment as their authority: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’

My attention was drawn to a bill passed by the US House of Representatives on 5/13/2015: H.R.36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which prohibits abortions in most cases when the age of the fetus is greater than 20 weeks. Of course, there is nothing in the US Constitution giving the Federal government a role in reproductive medicine. Abortion advocates are wrong in claiming a constitutional right to privacy, and the Supreme Court was wrong in agreeing. That doesn’t justify Republicans in retaliating with crowd-pleasing legislation like HR 36 that colludes in the expansion of federal power in this area.

The problem doesn’t end with abortion. Over time other issues have been exploited at the national level, with Republicans playing along:

  • Republicans in Congress oppose legalizing marijuana in the states and the District of Columbia.
  • The Republican 2012 platform supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to not recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

There is a common fault with politicians: greed for power. When a politician spots an un-served constituency they sign them up as new clients, jump to their support and get their loyalty. In the political game that’s how you gain new votes and build your campaign budget. It’s an ethical challenge for the politician in these cases: how to reconcile a new agenda with their previous positions and allegiances. The challenge for voters is to hold politicians accountable for pandering and hypocrisy. If your legislator supports positions you agree with and manages to avoid these conflicts, count yourself lucky.

The genuine conservative position on abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana legalization is that they are matters for the states to decide. When Republicans join in by trying to put their own spin on Federal control in these areas, that’s hypocrisy.

You can’t vote for Federal involvement in marijuana legalization, abortion, and gay marriage and then pretend to respect the 10th amendment. If there is a reason for Federal control, follow the path provided by the constitution: pass an amendment and add that item to the list of specified powers.

The bottom line
Don’t say you support constitutional limits on Federal power, and then do anything like this:

  • pass HR 36, which seeks to expand Federal regulation of abortion,
  • oppose marijuana legalization in the states and the District of Columbia,
  • pass the Defense of Marriage Act, which undermines states’ right to define marriage.