| WHY HAS THE PROGRESSIVE SOCIALISM MOVEMENT SUCCEEDED IN TAKING OVER US PUBLIC ED? IT'S HAD BIG MONEY BEHIND IT, THE KIND OF BIG MONEY LIKE DAVID ROCKEFELLER'S THAT NOT ONLY HAS MUSCLE AND STAYING POWER BUT HIS OIL COMPANY EXXON MOBIL'S TONY THE TIGER MASCOT'S DYNAMIC ENERGY |
| THSP's Big Eight include Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and Ysleta ISD's. |
| Curious about all this talk about nationalization of our local public school districts? More here. Heard about that Iowa graph tracking 65 years of spending on drecky programs compared with test scores? It's here, proof positive in the face of half of our students entering college -- the lucky ones who didn't drop out -- needing remedial help in core subjects that throwing money and unproven social and curricular fixes at education does not work. For our kids to be able to compete in this world they are going to have to know math facts like what 8 times 9 is by rote as the result of daily drills and to be able to draw upon truths learned from great literature -- better Marcus Aurelius' caution, "Do not live as though you had a thousand years" than the "Duh, he said" drivel too often substituted. They need to learn real history about wars and money and power and aggression, not social studies lessons about rock stars. They need facts, and daily strenuous physical exercise; with these building blocks they can develop their own learning strategies as sentient human beings and develop genuine self-confidence through setting hard goals and accomplishing them. In this way we will once again have an informed electorate capable of thinking for themselves. |
What follows comes in three places:
First, a vision of the kind of national — not federal — human resources development system the nation could have. This is
interwoven with a new approach to governing that should inform that vision. What is essential is that we create a seamless web of
opportunities, to develop one's skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone — young and
old, poor and rich, worker and full-time student. It needs to be a system driven by client needs (not agency regulations or the needs
of the organization providing the services), guided by clear standards that define the stages of the system for the people who
progress through it, and regulated on the basis of outcomes that providers produce for their clients, not inputs into the system.
Second, a proposed legislative agenda you can use to implement this vision. We propose four high priority packages that will enable
you to move quickly on the campaign promises:
[Page: E1820]
The first would use your proposal for an apprenticeship system as the keystone of a strategy for putting a whole new
postsecondary training system in place. That system would incorporate your proposal for reforming postsecondary education
finance. It contains what we think is a powerful idea for rolling out and scaling up the whole new human resources system
nationwide over the next four years, using the (renamed) apprenticeship ideas as the entering wedge.
The second would combine initiatives on dislocated workers, a rebuilt employment service and a new system of labor market
boards to offer the Clinton administration's employment security program, built on the best practices anywhere in the world. This is
the backbone of a system for assuring adult workers in our society that they need never again watch with dismay as their jobs
disappear and their chances of ever getting a good job again go with them.
The third would concentrate on the overwhelming problems of our inner cities, combining elements of the first and second
packages into a special program to greatly raise the work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our great cities.
The fourth would enable you to take advantage of legislation on which Congress has already been working to advance the
elementary and secondary reform agenda.
The other major proposal we offer has to do with government organization for the human resources agenda. While we share your
reservations about the hazards involved in bringing reorganization proposals to the Congress, we believe that the one we have come
up with minimizes those drawbacks while creating an opportunity for the new administration to move like lightning to implement its
human resources development proposals. We hope you can consider the merits of this idea quickly, because, if you decide to go
with it or something like it, it will greatly affect the nature of the offers you make to prospective cabinet members.
The Vision
We take the proposals Bill put before the country in the campaign to be utterly consistent with the ideas advanced in America's
Choice, the school restructuring agenda first stated in A Nation Prepared, and later incorporated in the work of the National Alliance
for Restructuring Education, and the elaboration of this view that Ray and I tried to capture in our book, Thinking for a Living.
Taken together, we think these ideas constitute a consistent vision for a new human resources development system for the United
States. I have tried to capture the essence of that vision below.
An Economic Strategy Based on Skill Development
The economy's strength is derived from a whole population as skilled as any in the world, working in workplaces organized to take
maximum advantage of the skills those people have to offer.
A seamless system of unending skill development that begins in the home with the very young and continues through school,
postsecondary education and the workplace.
The Schools
Clear national standards of performance in general education (the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in
common) are set to the level of the best achieving nations in the world for students of 16, and public schools are expected to bring
all but the most severely handicapped up to that standard. Students get a certificate when they meet this standard, allowing them to
go on to the next stage of their education. Though the standards are set to international benchmarks, they are distinctly American,
reflecting our needs and values.
We have a national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations, and teacher education and licensure systems
are all linked to the national standards, but which provides for substantial variance among states, districts, and schools on these
matters. This new system of linked standards, curriculum, and pedagogy will abandon the American tracking system, combining
high academic standards with the ability to apply what one knows to real world problems and qualifying all students for a lifetime of
learning in the postsecondary system and at work.
We have a system that rewards students who meet the national standards with further education and good jobs, providing them a
strong incentive to work hard in school.
Our public school systems are reorganized to free up school professionals to make the key decisions about how to use all the
available resources to bring students up to the standards. Most of the federal, state, district and union rules and regulations that now
restrict school professionals' ability to make these decisions are swept away, though strong measures are in place to make sure that
vulnerable populations get the help they need. School professionals are paid at a level comparable to that of other professionals, but
they are expected to put in a full year, to spend whatever time it takes to do the job and to be fully accountable for the results of
their work. The federal, state and local governments provide the time, staff development resources, technology and other support
needed for them to do the job. Nothing less than a wholly restructured school system can possibly bring all of our students up to
the standards only a few have been expected to meet up to now.
There is a real — aggressive — program of public choice in our schools, rather than the flaccid version that is widespread now.
All students are guaranteed that they will have a fair shot at reaching the standards: that is, that whether they make it or not depends
on the effort they are willing to make, and nothing else. School delivery standards are in place to make sure this happens. These
standards have the same status in the system as the new student performance standards, assuring that the quality of instruction is
high everywhere, but they are fashioned so as not to constitute a new bureaucratic nightmare.
Postsecondary Education and Work Skills
All students who meet the new national standards for general education are entitled to the equivalent of three more years of free
additional education. We would have the federal and state governments match funds to guarantee one free year of college education
to everyone who meets the new national standards for general education. So a student who meets the standard at 16 would be
entitled to two free years of high school and one of college. Loans, which can be forgiven for public service, are available for
additional education beyond that. National standards for sub-baccalaureate college-level professional and technical degrees and
certificates will be established with the participation of employers, labor and higher education. These programs will include both
academic study and structured on-the-job training. Eighty percent or more of American high school graduates will be expected to
get some form of college degree, though most of them less than a baccalaureate. These new professional and technical certificates
and degrees typically are won within three years of acquiring the general education certificate, so, for most postsecondary students,
college will be free. These professional and technical degree programs will be designed to link to programs leading to the
baccalaureate degree and higher degrees. There will be no dead ends in this system. Everyone who meets the general education
standard will be able to go to some form of college, being able to borrow all the money they need to do so, beyond the first free
year.
(This idea of post-secondary professional and technical certificates captures all of the essentials of the apprenticeship idea, while
offering none of its drawbacks (see below). But it also makes it clear that those engaged in apprentice-style programs are getting
more than narrow training; they are continuing their education for other purposes as well, and building a base for more education
later. Clearly, this idea redefines college. Proprietary schools, employers and community-based organizations will want to offer
these programs, as well as community colleges and four-year institutions, but these new entrants will have to be accredited if they
are to qualify to offer the programs.)
Employers are not required to provide slots for the structured on-the-job training component of the program but many do so,
because they get first access to the most accomplished graduates of these programs, and they can use these programs to introduce
the trainees to their own values and way of doing things.
The system of skill standards for technical and professional degrees is the same for students just coming out of high school and for
adults in the workforce. It is progressive, in the sense that certificates and degrees for entry level jobs lead to further professional
and technical education programs at higher levels. Just as in the case of the system for the schools, though the standards are the
same everywhere (leading to maximum mobility for students), the curricula can vary widely and programs can be custom designed
to fit the needs of full-time and part-time students with very different requirements. Government grant and loan programs are
available on the same terms to full-time and part-time students, as long as the programs in which they are enrolled are designed to
lead to certificates and degrees defined by the system of professional and technical standards.
The national system of professional and technical standards is designed much like the multistate bar, which provides a national core
around which the states can specify additional standards that meet their unique needs. There are national standards and exams for
no more than 20 broad occupational areas, each of which can lead to many occupations in a number of related industries. Students
who qualify in any one of these areas have the broad skills required by a whole family of occupations, and most are sufficiently
skilled to enter the workforce immediately, with further occupation-specific skills provided by their union or employer. Industry and
occupational groups can voluntarily create standards building on these broad standards for their own needs, as can the states.
Students entering the system are first introduced to very broad occupational groups, narrowing over time to concentrate on
acquiring the skills needed for a cluster of occupations. This modular system provides for the initiative of particular states and
industries while at the same time providing for mobility across states and occupations by reducing the time and cost entailed in
moving from one occupation to another. In this way, a balance is established between the kinds of generic skills needed to function
effectively in high performance work organizations and the skills needed to continue learning quickly and well through a lifetime of
work, on the one hand, and the specific skills needed to perform at a high level in a particular occupation on the other.
Institutions receiving grant and loan funds under this system are required to provide information to the public and to government
agencies in a uniform format. This information covers enrollment by program, costs and success rates for students of different
backgrounds and characteristics, and career outcomes for those students, thereby enabling students to make informed choices
among institutions based on cost and performance. Loan defaults are reduced to a level close to zero, both because programs that
do not deliver what they promise are not selected by prospective students and because the new postsecondary loan system uses the
IRS to collect what is owed from salaries and wages as they are earned.
[Page: E1821]
Education and Training for Employed and Unemployed Adults
The national system of skills standards establishes the basis for the development of a coherent, unified training system. That system
can be accessed by students coming out of high school, employed adults who want to improve their prospects, unemployed adults
who are dislocated and others who lack the basic skills required to get out of poverty. But it is all the same system. There are no
longer any parts of it that are exclusively for the disadvantaged, though special measures are taken to make sure that the
disadvantaged are served. It is a system for everyone, just as all the parts of the system already described are for everyone. So the
people who take advantage of this system are not marked by it as damaged goods. The skills they acquire are world class, clear and
defined in part by the employers who will make decisions about hiring and advancement.
The new general education standard becomes the target for all basic education programs, both for school dropouts and adults.
Achieving that standard is the prerequisite for enrollment in all professional and technical degree programs. A wide range of
agencies and institutions offer programs leading to the general education certificate, including high schools, dropout recovery
centers, adult education centers, community colleges, prisons and employers. These programs are tailored to the needs of the
people who enroll in them. All the programs receiving government grant or loan funds that come with dropouts and adults for
enrollment in programs preparing students to meet the general education standard must release the same kind of data required of the
postsecondary institutions on enrollment, program description, cost and success rates. Reports are produced for each institution
and for the system as a whole showing differential success rates for each major demographic group.
The system is funded in four different ways, all providing access to the same or a similar set of services. School dropouts below
the age of 21 are entitled to the same amount of funding from the same sources that they would have been entitled to had they
stayed in school. Dislocated workers are funded by the federal government through the federal programs for that purpose and by
state unemployment insurance funds. The chronically unemployed are funded by federal and state funds established for that
purpose. Employed people can access the system through the requirement that their employers spend an amount equal to 1-1/2
percent of their salary and wage bill on training leading to national skill certification. People in prison could get reductions in their
sentences by meeting the general education standard in a program provided by the prison system. Any of these groups can also use
the funds in their individual training account, if they have any, the balances in their grant entitlement or their access to the student
loan fund.
Labor Market Systems
The Employment Service is greatly upgraded and separated from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. All available front-line jobs —
whether public or private — must be listed in it by law. (This provision must be carefully designed to make sure that employers will
not be subject to employment suits based on the data produced by this system — if they are subject to such suits, they will not
participate.) All trainees in the system looking for work are entitled to be listed in it without a fee. So it is no longer a system just for
the poor and unskilled, but for everyone. The system is fully computerized. It lists not only job openings and job seekers (with their
qualifications) but also all the institutions in the labor market area offering programs leading to the general education certificate and
those offering programs leading to the professional and technical college degrees and certificates, along with all the relevant data
about the costs, characteristics and performance of those programs — for everyone and for special populations. Counselors are
available to any citizen to help them assess their needs, plan a program and finance it, and, once they are trained, to find an opening.
A system of labor market boards is established at the local, state and federal levels to coordinate the systems for job training,
postsecondary professional and technical education, adult basic education, job matching and counseling. The rebuilt Employment
Service is supervised by these boards. The system's clients no longer have to go from agency to agency filling out separate
applications for separate programs. It is all taken care of at the local labor market board office by one counselor accessing the
integrated computer-based program, which makes it possible for the counselor to determine eligibility for all relevant programs at
once, plan a program with the client and assemble the necessary funding from all the available sources. The same system will enable
counselor and client to array all the relevant program providers side by side, assess their relative costs and performance records and
determine which providers are best able to meet the client's needs based on performance.
Some Common Features
Throughout, the object is to have a performance- and client-oriented system, to encourage local creativity and responsibility by
getting local people to commit to high goals and organize to achieve them, sweeping away as much of the rules, regulations and
bureaucracy that are in their way as possible, provided that they are making real progress against their goals. For this to work, the
standards at every level of the system have to be clear; every client has to know what they have to accomplish in order to get what
they want out of the system. The service providers have to be supported in the task of getting their clients to the finish line and
rewarded when they are making real progress toward that goal. We would sweep away means-tested programs, because they
stigmatize their recipients and alienate the public, replacing them with programs that are for everyone, but also work for the
disadvantaged. We would replace rules defining inputs with rules defining outcomes and the rewards for achieving them. This
means, among other things, permitting local people to combine as many federal programs as they see fit, provided that the intended
beneficiaries are progressing toward the right outcomes (there are now 23 separate federal programs for dislocated workers!). We
would make individuals, their families and whole communities the unit of service, not agencies, programs and projects. Wherever
possible, we would have service providers compete with one another for funds that come with the client, in an environment in
which the client has good information about the cost and performance record of the competing providers. Dealing with public
agencies — whether they are schools or the employment service — should be more like dealing with Federal Express than with the
old Post Office.
This vision, as I pointed out above, is consistent with everything Bill proposed as a candidate. But it goes beyond those proposals,
extending them from ideas for new programs to a comprehensive vision of how they can be used as building blocks for a whole
new system. But this vision is very complex, will take a long time to sell, and will have to be revised many times along the way. The
right way to think about it is as an internal working document that forms the background for a plan, not the plan itself. One would
want to make sure that the specific actions of the new administration were designed, in a general way, to advance this agenda as it
evolved, while not committing anyone to the details, which would change over time.
Everything that follows is cast in the frame of strategies for bringing the new system into being, not as a pilot program, not as a
few demonstrations to be swept aside in another administration, but everywhere, as the new way of doing business.
In the sections that follow, we break these goals down into their main components and propose an action plan for each.
[Page: E1822]
Major Components of the Program
The preceding section presented a vision of the system we have in mind chronologically from the point of view of an individual
served by it. Here we reverse the order, starting with descriptions of program components designed to serve adults, and working
our way down to the very young.
HIGH SKILLS FOR ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS PROGRAM
Developing System Standards
Create National Board for Professional and Technical Standards. Board is private not-for-profit chartered by Congress. Charter
specifies broad membership composed of leading figures from higher education, business, labor, government and advocacy groups.
Board can receive appropriated funds from Congress, private foundations, individuals, and corporations. Neither Congress nor the
executive branch can dictate the standards set by the Board. But the Board is required to report annually to the President and the
Congress in order to provide for public accountability. It is also directed to work collaboratively with the states and cities involved
in the Collaborative Design and Development Program (see below) in the development of the standards.
Charter specifies that the National Board will set broad performance standards (not time-in-the-seat standards or course standards)
for college-level Professional and Technical certificates and degrees in not more than 20 areas and develops performance
examinations for each. The Board is required to set broad standards of the kind described in the vision statement above and is not
permitted to simply reify the narrow standards that characterize many occupations now. (More than 2,000 standards currently
exist, many for licensed occupations — these are not the kinds of standards we have in mind.) It also specifies that the programs
leading to these certificates and degrees will combine time in the classroom with time at the work-site in structured on-the-job
training. The standards assume the existence of (high school level) general education standards set by others. The new standards
and exams are meant to be supplemented by the states and by individual industries and occupations. Board is responsible for
administering the exam system and continually updating the standards and exams.
Legislation creating the Board is sent to the Congress in the first six months of the administration, imposing a deadline for creating
the standards and the exams within three years of passage of the legislation.
Commentary:
The proposal reframes the Clinton apprenticeship proposal as a college program and establishes a mechanism for setting the
standards for the program. The unions are adamantly opposed to broad based apprenticeship programs by that name. Focus groups
conducted by JFF and others show that parents everywhere want their kids to go to college, not to be shunted aside into a non-
college apprenticeship "vocational" program. By requiring these programs to be a combination of classroom instruction and
structured OJT, and creating a standard-setting board that includes employers and labor, all the objectives of the apprenticeship idea
are achieved, while at the same time assuring much broader support for the idea, as well as a guarantee that the program will not
become too narrowly focussed on particular occupations. It also ties the Clinton apprenticeship idea to the Clinton college funding
proposal in a seamless web. Charging the Board with creating not more than 20 certificate or degree categories establishes a balance
between the need to create one national system on the one hand with the need to avoid creating a cumbersome and rigid national
bureaucracy on the other. This approach provides lots of latitude for individual industry groups, professional groups and state
authorities to establish their own standards, while at the same time avoiding the chaos that would surely occur if they were the only
source of standards. The bill establishing the Board should also authorize the executive branch to make grants to industry groups,
professional societies, occupational groups and states to develop standards and exams. Our assumption is that the system we are
proposing will be managed so as to encourage the states to combine the last two years of high school and the first two years of
community college into three year programs leading to college degrees and certificates. Proprietary institutions, employers and
community-based organizations could also offer these programs, but they would have to be accredited to offer these college-level
programs. Eventually, students getting their general education certificates might go directly to community college or to another form
of college, but the new system should not require that.
Collaborative Design and Development Program
The object is to create a single comprehensive system for professional and technical education that meets the requirements of
everyone from high school students to skilled dislocated workers, from the hard core unemployed to employed adults who want to
improve their prospects. Creating such a system means sweeping aside countless programs, building new ones, combining funding
authorities, changing deeply embedded institutional structures, and so on. The question is how to get from where we are to where
we want to be. Trying to ram it down everyone's throat would engender overwhelming opposition. Our idea is to draft legislation
that would offer an opportunity for those states — and selected large cities — that are excited about this set of ideas to come
forward and join with each other and with the federal government in an alliance to do the necessary design work and actually deliver
the needed services on a fast track. The legislation would require the executive branch to establish a competitive grant program for
these states and cities and to engage a group of organizations to offer technical assistance to the expanding set of states and cities
engaged in designing and implementing the new system. This is not the usual large scale experiment, nor is it a demonstration
program. A highly regarded precedent exists for this approach in the National Science Foundation's SSI program. As soon as the
first set of states is engaged, another set would be invited to participate, until most or all the states are involved. It is a collaborative
design, rollout and scale-up program. It is intended to parallel the work of the National Board for College Professional and Technical
Standards, so that the states and cities (and all their partners) would be able to implement the new standards as soon as they
become available, although they would be delivering services on a large scale before that happened. Thus, major parts of the whole
system would be in operation in a majority of the states within three years from the passage of the initial legislation. Inclusion of
selected large cities in this design is not an afterthought. We believe that what we are proposing here for the cities is the necessary
complement to a large scale job-creation program for the cities. Skill development will not work if there are no jobs, but job
development will not work without a determined effort to improve the skills of city residents. This is the skill development
component.
Participants
Criteria for Selection
Clients
Program Components
[Page: E1823]
National technical assistance to participants
Dislocated Workers Program
new legislation would permit combining all dislocated workers programs at redesigned employment service office. Clients would, in
effect, receive vouchers for education and training in amounts determined by the benefits for which they qualify. Employment
service case managers would qualify client worker for benefits and assist the client in the selection of education and training
programs offered by provider institutions. Any provider institutions that receive funds derived from dislocated worker programs are
required to provide information on costs and performance of programs in uniform format described above. This consolidated and
voucherized dislocated workers program would operate nationwide. It would be integrated with Collaborative Design and
Development Program in those states and cities in which that program functioned. It would be built around the general education
certificate and the Professional and Technical Certificate and Degree Program as soon as those standards were in place. In this
way, programs for dislocated workers would be progressively and fully integrated with the rest of the national education and
training system.
Levy-Grant System
this is the part of the system that provides funds for currently employed people to improve their skills. Ideally, it should specifically
provide means whereby front-line workers can earn their general education credential (if they do not already have one) and acquire
Professional and Technical Certificates and degrees in fields of their choosing.
everything we have heard indicates virtually universal opposition in the employer community to the proposal for a 1-1/2% levy on
employers for training to support the costs associated with employed workers gaining these skills, whatever the levy is called. We
propose that Bill take a leaf out of the German book. One of the most important reasons that large German employers offer
apprenticeship slots to German youngsters is that they fear, with good reason, that if they don't volunteer to do so, the law will
require it. Bill could gather a group of leading executives and business organization leaders, and tell them straight out that he will
hold back on submitting legislation to require a training levy, provided that they commit themselves to a drive to get employers to
get their average expenditures on front-line employee training up to 2% of front-line employee salaries and wages within two years.
If they have not done so within that time, then he will expect their support when he submits legislation requiring the training levy.
He could do the same thing with respect to slots for structured on-the-job training.
College Loan/Public Service Program
we presume that this program is being designed by others and so have not attended to it. From everything we know about it,
however, it is entirely compatible with the rest of what is proposed here. What is, of course, especially relevant here, is that our
reconceptualization of the apprenticeship proposal as a college-level education program, combined with our proposal that everyone
who gets the general education credential be entitled to a free year of higher education (combined federal and state funds) will have
a decided impact on the calculations of cost for the college loan/public service program.
Assistance for Dropouts are the Long-Term Unemployed
the problem of upgrading the skills of high school dropouts and the adult hard core unemployed is especially difficult. It is also at
the heart of the problem of our inner cities. All the evidence indicates that what is needed is something with all the important
characteristics of a non-residential Job Corps-like program. The problem with the Job Corps is that it is operated directly by the
federal government and is therefore not embedded at all in the infrastructure of local communities. The way to solve this problem is
to create a new urban program that is locally — not federally — organized and administered, but which must operate in a way that
uses something like the federal standards for contracting for Job Corps services. In this way, local employers, neighborhood
organizations and other local service providers could meet the need, but requiring local authorities to use the federal standards would
assure high quality results. Programs for high school dropouts and the hard-core unemployed would probably have to be separately
organized, though the services provided would be much the same. Federal funds would be offered on a matching basis with state
and local funds for this purpose. These programs should be fully integrated with the revitalized employment service. The local labor
market board would be the local authority responsible for receiving the funds and contracting with providers for the services. It
would provide diagnostic, placement and testing services. We would eliminate the targeted jobs credit and use the money now spent
on that program to finance these operations. Funds can also be used from the JOBS program in the welfare reform act. This will
not be sufficient, however, because there is currently no federal money available to meet the needs of hard-core unemployed males
(mostly Black) and so new monies will have to be appropriated for the purpose.
Commentary:
As you know very well, the High Skills, Competitive Workforce Act sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Hatfield and Congressmen
Gephardt and Regula provides a ready-made vehicle for advancing many of the ideas we have outlined. To foster a good working
relationship with the Congress, we suggest that, to the extent possible, the framework of these companion bills be used to frame the
President's proposals. You may not know that we have put together a large group of representatives of Washington-based
organizations to come to a consensus around the ideas in America's Choice. They are full of energy and very committed to this joint
effort. If they are made part of the process of framing the legislative proposals, they can be expected to be strong support for them
when they arrive on the Hill. As you think about the assembly of these ideas into specific legislative proposals, you may also want to
take into account the packaging ideas that come later in this letter.
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAM
The situation with respect to elementary and secondary education is very different from adult education and training. In the latter
case, a new vision and a whole new structure is required. In the former, there is increasing acceptance of a new vision and
structure among the public at large, within the relevant professional groups and in Congress. There is also a lot of existing activity
on which to build. So we confine ourselves here to describing some of those activities that can be used to launch the Clinton
education program.
Standard Setting
Legislation to accelerate the process of national standard setting in education was contained in
the conference report on S.2 and HR 4323 that was defeated on a recent cloture vote. Solid majorities
were behind the legislation in both houses of Congress. While some of us would quarrel with a few of the details, we think the new
administration should support the early reintroduction of this legislation with whatever changes it thinks fit. This legislation does not
establish a national body to create a national examination system. We think that is the right choice for now.
[Page: E1824]
Systemic Chance in Public Education
The conference report on S.2 and HR 4323 also contained a comprehensive program to support systemic change in public
education. Here again, some of us would quibble with some of the particulars, but we believe that the administration's objectives
would be well served by endorsing the resubmission of this legislation, modified as it sees fit.
Federal Programs for the Disadvantaged
The established federal education programs for the disadvantaged need to be thoroughly overhauled to reflect an emphasis on results
for the students rather than compliance with the regulations. A national commission on Chapter 1, the largest of these programs,
chaired by David Hornbeck, has designed a radically new version of this legislation, with the active participation of many of the
advocacy groups. Other groups have been similarly engaged. We think the new administration should quickly endorse the work of
the national commission and introduce its proposals early next year. It is unlikely that this legislation will pass before the deadline —
two years away — for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but early endorsement of this new
approach by the administration will send a strong signal to the Congress and will greatly affect the climate in which other parts of
the act will be considered.
Public Choice Technology, Integrated Health and Human Services, Curriculum Resources, High Performance Management,
Professional Development and Research and Development
The restructuring of the schools that is envisioned in S.2 and HR 4323 is not likely to succeed unless the schools have a lot of
information about how to do it and real assistance in getting it done. The areas in which this help is needed are suggested by the
heading of this section. One of the most cost-effective things the federal government could do is to provide support for research,
development and technical assistance of the schools on these topics. The new Secretary of Education should be directed to propose
a strategy for doing just that, on a scale sufficient to the need. Existing programs of research, development and assistance should be
examined as possible sources of funds for these purposes. Professional development is a special case. To build the restructured
system will require an enormous amount of professional development and the time in which professionals can take advantage of
such a resource. Both cost a lot of money. One of the priorities for the new education secretary should be the development of
strategies for dealing with these problems. But here, as elsewhere, there are some existing programs in the Department of Education
whose funds can be redirected for this purpose, programs that are not currently informed by the goals that we have spelled out.
Much of what we have in mind here can be accomplished through the reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. Legislation for that reauthorization was prepared for the last session of Congress, but did not pass. That legislation
was informed by a deep distrust of the Republican administration, rather than the vision put forward by the Clinton campaign, but
that can and should be remedied on the next round.
Early Childhood Education
The president-elect has committed himself to a great expansion in the funding of Head Start. We agree. But the design of the
program should be changed to reflect several important requirements. The quality of professional preparation for the people who
staff these programs is very low and there are no standards that apply to their employment. The same kind of standard setting we
have called for in the rest of this plan should inform the approach to this program. Early childhood education should be combined
with quality day care to provide wrap-around programs that enable working parents to drop off their children at the beginning of the
workday and pick them up at the end. Full funding for the very poor should be combined with matching funds to extend the tuition
paid by middle class parents to make sure that these programs are not officially segregated by income. The growth of the program
should be phased in, rather than done all at once, so that quality problems can be addressed along the way, based on developing
examples of best practice. These and other related issues need to be addressed, in our judgment, before the new administration
commits itself on the specific form of increased support for Head Start.
Putting the package together:
Here we remind you of what we said at the beginning of this letter about timing the legislative agenda. We propose that you
assemble the ideas just described into four high priority packages that will enable you to move quickly on the campaign promises:
The first would use your proposal for an apprenticeship system as the keystone of the strategy for putting the whole new
postsecondary training system in place. It would consist of the proposal for postsecondary standards, the Collaborative Design and
Development proposal, the technical assistance proposal and the postsecondary education finance proposal.
The second would combine the initiatives on dislocated workers, the rebuilt employment service and the new system of labor
market boards as the Clinton administration's employment security program, built on the best practices anywhere in the world. This
is the backbone of a system for assuring adult workers in our society that they need never again watch with dismay as their jobs
disappear and their chances of ever getting a good job again go with them.
The third would concentrate on the overwhelming problems of our inner cities, combining most of the elements of the first and
second packages into a special program to greatly raise the work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our great cities.
The fourth would enable you to take advantage of legislation on which Congress has already been working to advance the
elementary and secondary reform agenda. It would combine the successor to HR 4323 and S.2 (incorporating the systemic reforms
agenda and the board for student performance standards), with the proposal for revamping Chapter 1.
Organizing the Executive Branch for Human Resouces Development
The issue here is how to organize the federal government to make sure that the new system is actually built as a seamless web in
the field, where it counts, and that program gets a fast start with a first-rate team behind it.
We propose, first, that the President appoint a National Council on Human Resources Development. It would consist of the relevant
key White House officials, cabinet members and members of Congress. It would also include a small number of governors,
educators, business executives, labor leaders and advocates for minorities and the poor. It would be established in such a way as to
assure continuity of membership across administrations, so that the consensus it forges will outlast any one administration. It would
be charged with recommending broad policy on a national system of human resources development to the President and the
Congress, assessing the effectiveness and promise of current programs and proposing new ones. It would be staffed by senior
officials on the Domestic Policy Council staff of the President.
Second, we propose that a new agency be created, the National Institute for Learning, Work and Service. Creation of this agency
would signal instantly the new administration's commitment to putting the continuing education and training of the `forgotten half'
on a par with the preparation of those who have historically been given the resources to go to 'college,' and to integrate the two
systems, not with a view to dragging down the present system and those it serves, but rather to make good on the promise that
everyone will have access to the kind of education that only a small minority have had access to up to now. To this agency would
be assigned the functions now performed by the assistant secretary for employment and training, the assistant secretary for
vocational education and the assistant secretary for higher education. The agency would be staffed by people specifically recruited
from all over the country for the purpose. The staff would be small, high powered and able to move quickly to implement the policy
initiatives of the new President in the field of human resources development.
The closest existing model to what we have in mind is the National Science Board and the National Science Foundation, with the
Council in the place of the Board and the Institute in the place of the Foundation. But our council would be advisory, whereas the
Board is governing. If you do not like the idea of a permanent Council, you might consider the idea of a temporary President's Task
Force, constituted much as the Council would be.
In this scheme, the Department of Education would be free to focus on putting the new student performance standards in place and
managing the programs that will take the leadership in the national restructuring of the schools. Much of the financing and
disbursement functions of the higher education program would move to the Treasury Department, leaving the higher education staff
in the new Institute to focus on matters of substance.
In any case, as you can see, we believe that some extraordinary measure well short of actually merging the departments of labor
and education is required to move the new agenda with dispatch.
Getting Consensus on the Vision
Radical changes in attitudes, values and beliefs are required to move any combination of these agendas. The federal government will
have little direct leverage on many of the actors involved. For much of what must be done, a new, broad consensus will be
required. What role can the new administration play in forging that consensus and how should it go about doing it?
At the narrowest level, the agenda cannot be moved unless there is agreement among the governors, the President and the
Congress. Bill's role at the Charlottesville summit leads naturally to a reconvening of that group, perhaps with the addition of key
members of Congress and others.
But we think that having an early summit on the subject of the whole human resources agenda would be risky, for many reasons.
Better to build on Bill's enormous success during the campaign with national talk shows, in school gymnasiums and the bus trips.
He could start on the consensus-building progress this way, taking his message directly to the public, while submitting his legislative
agenda and working it on the Hill. After six months or so, when the public has warmed to the ideas and the legislative packages are
about to get into hearings, then you might consider some form of summit, broadened to include not only the governors, but also key
members of Congress and others whose support and influence are important. This way, Bill can be sure that the agenda is his, and
he can go into it with a groundswell of support behind him.
• • •
That's it. None of us doubt that you have thought long and hard about many of these things and have probably gone way beyond
what we have laid out in many areas. But we hope that there is something here that you can use. We would, of course, be very
happy to flesh out these ideas at greater length and work with anyone you choose to make them fit the work that you have been
doing.
Very best wishes from all of us to you and Bill.
[signed: Marc]
Marc Tucker
END
First, a vision of the kind of national — not federal — human resources development system the nation could have. This is
interwoven with a new approach to governing that should inform that vision. What is essential is that we create a seamless web of
opportunities, to develop one's skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone — young and
old, poor and rich, worker and full-time student. It needs to be a system driven by client needs (not agency regulations or the needs
of the organization providing the services), guided by clear standards that define the stages of the system for the people who
progress through it, and regulated on the basis of outcomes that providers produce for their clients, not inputs into the system.
Second, a proposed legislative agenda you can use to implement this vision. We propose four high priority packages that will enable
you to move quickly on the campaign promises:
[Page: E1820]
The first would use your proposal for an apprenticeship system as the keystone of a strategy for putting a whole new
postsecondary training system in place. That system would incorporate your proposal for reforming postsecondary education
finance. It contains what we think is a powerful idea for rolling out and scaling up the whole new human resources system
nationwide over the next four years, using the (renamed) apprenticeship ideas as the entering wedge.
The second would combine initiatives on dislocated workers, a rebuilt employment service and a new system of labor market
boards to offer the Clinton administration's employment security program, built on the best practices anywhere in the world. This is
the backbone of a system for assuring adult workers in our society that they need never again watch with dismay as their jobs
disappear and their chances of ever getting a good job again go with them.
The third would concentrate on the overwhelming problems of our inner cities, combining elements of the first and second
packages into a special program to greatly raise the work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our great cities.
The fourth would enable you to take advantage of legislation on which Congress has already been working to advance the
elementary and secondary reform agenda.
The other major proposal we offer has to do with government organization for the human resources agenda. While we share your
reservations about the hazards involved in bringing reorganization proposals to the Congress, we believe that the one we have come
up with minimizes those drawbacks while creating an opportunity for the new administration to move like lightning to implement its
human resources development proposals. We hope you can consider the merits of this idea quickly, because, if you decide to go
with it or something like it, it will greatly affect the nature of the offers you make to prospective cabinet members.
The Vision
We take the proposals Bill put before the country in the campaign to be utterly consistent with the ideas advanced in America's
Choice, the school restructuring agenda first stated in A Nation Prepared, and later incorporated in the work of the National Alliance
for Restructuring Education, and the elaboration of this view that Ray and I tried to capture in our book, Thinking for a Living.
Taken together, we think these ideas constitute a consistent vision for a new human resources development system for the United
States. I have tried to capture the essence of that vision below.
An Economic Strategy Based on Skill Development
The economy's strength is derived from a whole population as skilled as any in the world, working in workplaces organized to take
maximum advantage of the skills those people have to offer.
A seamless system of unending skill development that begins in the home with the very young and continues through school,
postsecondary education and the workplace.
The Schools
Clear national standards of performance in general education (the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in
common) are set to the level of the best achieving nations in the world for students of 16, and public schools are expected to bring
all but the most severely handicapped up to that standard. Students get a certificate when they meet this standard, allowing them to
go on to the next stage of their education. Though the standards are set to international benchmarks, they are distinctly American,
reflecting our needs and values.
We have a national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations, and teacher education and licensure systems
are all linked to the national standards, but which provides for substantial variance among states, districts, and schools on these
matters. This new system of linked standards, curriculum, and pedagogy will abandon the American tracking system, combining
high academic standards with the ability to apply what one knows to real world problems and qualifying all students for a lifetime of
learning in the postsecondary system and at work.
We have a system that rewards students who meet the national standards with further education and good jobs, providing them a
strong incentive to work hard in school.
Our public school systems are reorganized to free up school professionals to make the key decisions about how to use all the
available resources to bring students up to the standards. Most of the federal, state, district and union rules and regulations that now
restrict school professionals' ability to make these decisions are swept away, though strong measures are in place to make sure that
vulnerable populations get the help they need. School professionals are paid at a level comparable to that of other professionals, but
they are expected to put in a full year, to spend whatever time it takes to do the job and to be fully accountable for the results of
their work. The federal, state and local governments provide the time, staff development resources, technology and other support
needed for them to do the job. Nothing less than a wholly restructured school system can possibly bring all of our students up to
the standards only a few have been expected to meet up to now.
There is a real — aggressive — program of public choice in our schools, rather than the flaccid version that is widespread now.
All students are guaranteed that they will have a fair shot at reaching the standards: that is, that whether they make it or not depends
on the effort they are willing to make, and nothing else. School delivery standards are in place to make sure this happens. These
standards have the same status in the system as the new student performance standards, assuring that the quality of instruction is
high everywhere, but they are fashioned so as not to constitute a new bureaucratic nightmare.
Postsecondary Education and Work Skills
All students who meet the new national standards for general education are entitled to the equivalent of three more years of free
additional education. We would have the federal and state governments match funds to guarantee one free year of college education
to everyone who meets the new national standards for general education. So a student who meets the standard at 16 would be
entitled to two free years of high school and one of college. Loans, which can be forgiven for public service, are available for
additional education beyond that. National standards for sub-baccalaureate college-level professional and technical degrees and
certificates will be established with the participation of employers, labor and higher education. These programs will include both
academic study and structured on-the-job training. Eighty percent or more of American high school graduates will be expected to
get some form of college degree, though most of them less than a baccalaureate. These new professional and technical certificates
and degrees typically are won within three years of acquiring the general education certificate, so, for most postsecondary students,
college will be free. These professional and technical degree programs will be designed to link to programs leading to the
baccalaureate degree and higher degrees. There will be no dead ends in this system. Everyone who meets the general education
standard will be able to go to some form of college, being able to borrow all the money they need to do so, beyond the first free
year.
(This idea of post-secondary professional and technical certificates captures all of the essentials of the apprenticeship idea, while
offering none of its drawbacks (see below). But it also makes it clear that those engaged in apprentice-style programs are getting
more than narrow training; they are continuing their education for other purposes as well, and building a base for more education
later. Clearly, this idea redefines college. Proprietary schools, employers and community-based organizations will want to offer
these programs, as well as community colleges and four-year institutions, but these new entrants will have to be accredited if they
are to qualify to offer the programs.)
Employers are not required to provide slots for the structured on-the-job training component of the program but many do so,
because they get first access to the most accomplished graduates of these programs, and they can use these programs to introduce
the trainees to their own values and way of doing things.
The system of skill standards for technical and professional degrees is the same for students just coming out of high school and for
adults in the workforce. It is progressive, in the sense that certificates and degrees for entry level jobs lead to further professional
and technical education programs at higher levels. Just as in the case of the system for the schools, though the standards are the
same everywhere (leading to maximum mobility for students), the curricula can vary widely and programs can be custom designed
to fit the needs of full-time and part-time students with very different requirements. Government grant and loan programs are
available on the same terms to full-time and part-time students, as long as the programs in which they are enrolled are designed to
lead to certificates and degrees defined by the system of professional and technical standards.
The national system of professional and technical standards is designed much like the multistate bar, which provides a national core
around which the states can specify additional standards that meet their unique needs. There are national standards and exams for
no more than 20 broad occupational areas, each of which can lead to many occupations in a number of related industries. Students
who qualify in any one of these areas have the broad skills required by a whole family of occupations, and most are sufficiently
skilled to enter the workforce immediately, with further occupation-specific skills provided by their union or employer. Industry and
occupational groups can voluntarily create standards building on these broad standards for their own needs, as can the states.
Students entering the system are first introduced to very broad occupational groups, narrowing over time to concentrate on
acquiring the skills needed for a cluster of occupations. This modular system provides for the initiative of particular states and
industries while at the same time providing for mobility across states and occupations by reducing the time and cost entailed in
moving from one occupation to another. In this way, a balance is established between the kinds of generic skills needed to function
effectively in high performance work organizations and the skills needed to continue learning quickly and well through a lifetime of
work, on the one hand, and the specific skills needed to perform at a high level in a particular occupation on the other.
Institutions receiving grant and loan funds under this system are required to provide information to the public and to government
agencies in a uniform format. This information covers enrollment by program, costs and success rates for students of different
backgrounds and characteristics, and career outcomes for those students, thereby enabling students to make informed choices
among institutions based on cost and performance. Loan defaults are reduced to a level close to zero, both because programs that
do not deliver what they promise are not selected by prospective students and because the new postsecondary loan system uses the
IRS to collect what is owed from salaries and wages as they are earned.
[Page: E1821]
Education and Training for Employed and Unemployed Adults
The national system of skills standards establishes the basis for the development of a coherent, unified training system. That system
can be accessed by students coming out of high school, employed adults who want to improve their prospects, unemployed adults
who are dislocated and others who lack the basic skills required to get out of poverty. But it is all the same system. There are no
longer any parts of it that are exclusively for the disadvantaged, though special measures are taken to make sure that the
disadvantaged are served. It is a system for everyone, just as all the parts of the system already described are for everyone. So the
people who take advantage of this system are not marked by it as damaged goods. The skills they acquire are world class, clear and
defined in part by the employers who will make decisions about hiring and advancement.
The new general education standard becomes the target for all basic education programs, both for school dropouts and adults.
Achieving that standard is the prerequisite for enrollment in all professional and technical degree programs. A wide range of
agencies and institutions offer programs leading to the general education certificate, including high schools, dropout recovery
centers, adult education centers, community colleges, prisons and employers. These programs are tailored to the needs of the
people who enroll in them. All the programs receiving government grant or loan funds that come with dropouts and adults for
enrollment in programs preparing students to meet the general education standard must release the same kind of data required of the
postsecondary institutions on enrollment, program description, cost and success rates. Reports are produced for each institution
and for the system as a whole showing differential success rates for each major demographic group.
The system is funded in four different ways, all providing access to the same or a similar set of services. School dropouts below
the age of 21 are entitled to the same amount of funding from the same sources that they would have been entitled to had they
stayed in school. Dislocated workers are funded by the federal government through the federal programs for that purpose and by
state unemployment insurance funds. The chronically unemployed are funded by federal and state funds established for that
purpose. Employed people can access the system through the requirement that their employers spend an amount equal to 1-1/2
percent of their salary and wage bill on training leading to national skill certification. People in prison could get reductions in their
sentences by meeting the general education standard in a program provided by the prison system. Any of these groups can also use
the funds in their individual training account, if they have any, the balances in their grant entitlement or their access to the student
loan fund.
Labor Market Systems
The Employment Service is greatly upgraded and separated from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. All available front-line jobs —
whether public or private — must be listed in it by law. (This provision must be carefully designed to make sure that employers will
not be subject to employment suits based on the data produced by this system — if they are subject to such suits, they will not
participate.) All trainees in the system looking for work are entitled to be listed in it without a fee. So it is no longer a system just for
the poor and unskilled, but for everyone. The system is fully computerized. It lists not only job openings and job seekers (with their
qualifications) but also all the institutions in the labor market area offering programs leading to the general education certificate and
those offering programs leading to the professional and technical college degrees and certificates, along with all the relevant data
about the costs, characteristics and performance of those programs — for everyone and for special populations. Counselors are
available to any citizen to help them assess their needs, plan a program and finance it, and, once they are trained, to find an opening.
A system of labor market boards is established at the local, state and federal levels to coordinate the systems for job training,
postsecondary professional and technical education, adult basic education, job matching and counseling. The rebuilt Employment
Service is supervised by these boards. The system's clients no longer have to go from agency to agency filling out separate
applications for separate programs. It is all taken care of at the local labor market board office by one counselor accessing the
integrated computer-based program, which makes it possible for the counselor to determine eligibility for all relevant programs at
once, plan a program with the client and assemble the necessary funding from all the available sources. The same system will enable
counselor and client to array all the relevant program providers side by side, assess their relative costs and performance records and
determine which providers are best able to meet the client's needs based on performance.
Some Common Features
Throughout, the object is to have a performance- and client-oriented system, to encourage local creativity and responsibility by
getting local people to commit to high goals and organize to achieve them, sweeping away as much of the rules, regulations and
bureaucracy that are in their way as possible, provided that they are making real progress against their goals. For this to work, the
standards at every level of the system have to be clear; every client has to know what they have to accomplish in order to get what
they want out of the system. The service providers have to be supported in the task of getting their clients to the finish line and
rewarded when they are making real progress toward that goal. We would sweep away means-tested programs, because they
stigmatize their recipients and alienate the public, replacing them with programs that are for everyone, but also work for the
disadvantaged. We would replace rules defining inputs with rules defining outcomes and the rewards for achieving them. This
means, among other things, permitting local people to combine as many federal programs as they see fit, provided that the intended
beneficiaries are progressing toward the right outcomes (there are now 23 separate federal programs for dislocated workers!). We
would make individuals, their families and whole communities the unit of service, not agencies, programs and projects. Wherever
possible, we would have service providers compete with one another for funds that come with the client, in an environment in
which the client has good information about the cost and performance record of the competing providers. Dealing with public
agencies — whether they are schools or the employment service — should be more like dealing with Federal Express than with the
old Post Office.
This vision, as I pointed out above, is consistent with everything Bill proposed as a candidate. But it goes beyond those proposals,
extending them from ideas for new programs to a comprehensive vision of how they can be used as building blocks for a whole
new system. But this vision is very complex, will take a long time to sell, and will have to be revised many times along the way. The
right way to think about it is as an internal working document that forms the background for a plan, not the plan itself. One would
want to make sure that the specific actions of the new administration were designed, in a general way, to advance this agenda as it
evolved, while not committing anyone to the details, which would change over time.
Everything that follows is cast in the frame of strategies for bringing the new system into being, not as a pilot program, not as a
few demonstrations to be swept aside in another administration, but everywhere, as the new way of doing business.
In the sections that follow, we break these goals down into their main components and propose an action plan for each.
[Page: E1822]
Major Components of the Program
The preceding section presented a vision of the system we have in mind chronologically from the point of view of an individual
served by it. Here we reverse the order, starting with descriptions of program components designed to serve adults, and working
our way down to the very young.
HIGH SKILLS FOR ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS PROGRAM
Developing System Standards
Create National Board for Professional and Technical Standards. Board is private not-for-profit chartered by Congress. Charter
specifies broad membership composed of leading figures from higher education, business, labor, government and advocacy groups.
Board can receive appropriated funds from Congress, private foundations, individuals, and corporations. Neither Congress nor the
executive branch can dictate the standards set by the Board. But the Board is required to report annually to the President and the
Congress in order to provide for public accountability. It is also directed to work collaboratively with the states and cities involved
in the Collaborative Design and Development Program (see below) in the development of the standards.
Charter specifies that the National Board will set broad performance standards (not time-in-the-seat standards or course standards)
for college-level Professional and Technical certificates and degrees in not more than 20 areas and develops performance
examinations for each. The Board is required to set broad standards of the kind described in the vision statement above and is not
permitted to simply reify the narrow standards that characterize many occupations now. (More than 2,000 standards currently
exist, many for licensed occupations — these are not the kinds of standards we have in mind.) It also specifies that the programs
leading to these certificates and degrees will combine time in the classroom with time at the work-site in structured on-the-job
training. The standards assume the existence of (high school level) general education standards set by others. The new standards
and exams are meant to be supplemented by the states and by individual industries and occupations. Board is responsible for
administering the exam system and continually updating the standards and exams.
Legislation creating the Board is sent to the Congress in the first six months of the administration, imposing a deadline for creating
the standards and the exams within three years of passage of the legislation.
Commentary:
The proposal reframes the Clinton apprenticeship proposal as a college program and establishes a mechanism for setting the
standards for the program. The unions are adamantly opposed to broad based apprenticeship programs by that name. Focus groups
conducted by JFF and others show that parents everywhere want their kids to go to college, not to be shunted aside into a non-
college apprenticeship "vocational" program. By requiring these programs to be a combination of classroom instruction and
structured OJT, and creating a standard-setting board that includes employers and labor, all the objectives of the apprenticeship idea
are achieved, while at the same time assuring much broader support for the idea, as well as a guarantee that the program will not
become too narrowly focussed on particular occupations. It also ties the Clinton apprenticeship idea to the Clinton college funding
proposal in a seamless web. Charging the Board with creating not more than 20 certificate or degree categories establishes a balance
between the need to create one national system on the one hand with the need to avoid creating a cumbersome and rigid national
bureaucracy on the other. This approach provides lots of latitude for individual industry groups, professional groups and state
authorities to establish their own standards, while at the same time avoiding the chaos that would surely occur if they were the only
source of standards. The bill establishing the Board should also authorize the executive branch to make grants to industry groups,
professional societies, occupational groups and states to develop standards and exams. Our assumption is that the system we are
proposing will be managed so as to encourage the states to combine the last two years of high school and the first two years of
community college into three year programs leading to college degrees and certificates. Proprietary institutions, employers and
community-based organizations could also offer these programs, but they would have to be accredited to offer these college-level
programs. Eventually, students getting their general education certificates might go directly to community college or to another form
of college, but the new system should not require that.
Collaborative Design and Development Program
The object is to create a single comprehensive system for professional and technical education that meets the requirements of
everyone from high school students to skilled dislocated workers, from the hard core unemployed to employed adults who want to
improve their prospects. Creating such a system means sweeping aside countless programs, building new ones, combining funding
authorities, changing deeply embedded institutional structures, and so on. The question is how to get from where we are to where
we want to be. Trying to ram it down everyone's throat would engender overwhelming opposition. Our idea is to draft legislation
that would offer an opportunity for those states — and selected large cities — that are excited about this set of ideas to come
forward and join with each other and with the federal government in an alliance to do the necessary design work and actually deliver
the needed services on a fast track. The legislation would require the executive branch to establish a competitive grant program for
these states and cities and to engage a group of organizations to offer technical assistance to the expanding set of states and cities
engaged in designing and implementing the new system. This is not the usual large scale experiment, nor is it a demonstration
program. A highly regarded precedent exists for this approach in the National Science Foundation's SSI program. As soon as the
first set of states is engaged, another set would be invited to participate, until most or all the states are involved. It is a collaborative
design, rollout and scale-up program. It is intended to parallel the work of the National Board for College Professional and Technical
Standards, so that the states and cities (and all their partners) would be able to implement the new standards as soon as they
become available, although they would be delivering services on a large scale before that happened. Thus, major parts of the whole
system would be in operation in a majority of the states within three years from the passage of the initial legislation. Inclusion of
selected large cities in this design is not an afterthought. We believe that what we are proposing here for the cities is the necessary
complement to a large scale job-creation program for the cities. Skill development will not work if there are no jobs, but job
development will not work without a determined effort to improve the skills of city residents. This is the skill development
component.
Participants
- volunteer states, counterpart initiative for cities.
- 15 states, 15 cities selected to begin in first year. 15 more in each successive year.
- 5 year grants (on the order of $20 million per year to each state, lower amounts to the cities) given to each, with specific
goals to be achieved by the third year, including program elements in place (e.g., upgraded employment service), number of
people enrolled in new professional and technical programs and so on.
- a core set of High Performance Work Organization firms willing to participate in standard setting and to offer training slots
and mentors.
Criteria for Selection
- strategies for enriching existing co-op, tech prep and other programs to meet the criteria.
- commitment to implementing new general education standard in legislation.
- commitment to implementing the new Technical and Professional skills standards for college.
- commitment to developing an outcome- and performance-based system for human resources development system.
- commitment to new role for employment service.
- commitment to join with others in national design and implementation activity.
Clients
- young adults entering workforce.
- dislocated workers.
- long-term unemployed.
- employed who want to upgrade skills.
Program Components
- institute own version of state and local labor market boards. Local labor market boards to involve leading employers, labor
representatives, educators and advocacy group leaders in running the redesigned employment service, running intake system
for all clients, counseling all clients, maintaining the information system that will make the vendor market efficient and
organizing employers to provide job experience and training slots for school youth and adult trainees.
- rebuild employment service as a primary function of labor market boards.
- develop programs to bring dropouts and illiterates up to general education certificate standard. Organize local alternative
providers, firms to provide alternative education, counseling, job experience and placement services to these clients.
- develop programs for dislocated workers and hard-core unemployed (see below).
- develop city- and state-wide programs to combine the last two years of high school and the first two years of colleges into
three-year programs after acquisition of the general education certificate to culminate in college certificates and degrees.
These programs should combine academics and structured on-the-job training.
- develop uniform reporting system for providers, requiring them to provide information in that format on characteristics of
clients, their success rates by program, and the costs of those programs. Develop computer-based system for combining
this data at local labor market board offices with employment data from the state so that counselors and clients can look at
programs offered by colleges and other vendors in terms of cost, client characteristics, program design, and outcomes.
Including subsequent employment histories for graduates.
- design all programs around the forthcoming general education standards and the standards to be developed by the National
Board for College Professional and Technical Standards.
- create statewide program of technical assistance to firms on high performance work organization and help them develop
quality programs for participants in Technical and Professional certificate and degree programs. (It is essential that these
programs be high quality, nonbureaucratic and voluntary for the firms.)
- participate with other states and the national technical assistance program in the national alliance effort to exchange
information and assistance among all participants.
[Page: E1823]
National technical assistance to participants
- executive branch authorized to compete opportunity to provide the following services (probably using a Request For
Qualifications):
- state-of-the art assistance to the states and cities related to the principal program components (e.g., work reorganization,
training, basic literacy, funding systems, apprenticeship systems, large scale data management systems, training systems for
the HR professionals who make the whole system work, etc.). A number of organizations would be funded. Each would be
expected to provide information and direct assistance to the states and cities involved, and to coordinate their efforts with
one another.
- it is essential that the technical assistance function include a major professional development component to make sure the key
people in the states and cities upon whom success depends have the resources available to develop the high skills required.
Some of the funds for this function should be provided directly to the states and cities, some to the technical assistance
agency.
- coordination of the design and implementation activities of the whole consortium, document results, prepare reports, etc.
One organization would be funded to perform this function.
Dislocated Workers Program
new legislation would permit combining all dislocated workers programs at redesigned employment service office. Clients would, in
effect, receive vouchers for education and training in amounts determined by the benefits for which they qualify. Employment
service case managers would qualify client worker for benefits and assist the client in the selection of education and training
programs offered by provider institutions. Any provider institutions that receive funds derived from dislocated worker programs are
required to provide information on costs and performance of programs in uniform format described above. This consolidated and
voucherized dislocated workers program would operate nationwide. It would be integrated with Collaborative Design and
Development Program in those states and cities in which that program functioned. It would be built around the general education
certificate and the Professional and Technical Certificate and Degree Program as soon as those standards were in place. In this
way, programs for dislocated workers would be progressively and fully integrated with the rest of the national education and
training system.
Levy-Grant System
this is the part of the system that provides funds for currently employed people to improve their skills. Ideally, it should specifically
provide means whereby front-line workers can earn their general education credential (if they do not already have one) and acquire
Professional and Technical Certificates and degrees in fields of their choosing.
everything we have heard indicates virtually universal opposition in the employer community to the proposal for a 1-1/2% levy on
employers for training to support the costs associated with employed workers gaining these skills, whatever the levy is called. We
propose that Bill take a leaf out of the German book. One of the most important reasons that large German employers offer
apprenticeship slots to German youngsters is that they fear, with good reason, that if they don't volunteer to do so, the law will
require it. Bill could gather a group of leading executives and business organization leaders, and tell them straight out that he will
hold back on submitting legislation to require a training levy, provided that they commit themselves to a drive to get employers to
get their average expenditures on front-line employee training up to 2% of front-line employee salaries and wages within two years.
If they have not done so within that time, then he will expect their support when he submits legislation requiring the training levy.
He could do the same thing with respect to slots for structured on-the-job training.
College Loan/Public Service Program
we presume that this program is being designed by others and so have not attended to it. From everything we know about it,
however, it is entirely compatible with the rest of what is proposed here. What is, of course, especially relevant here, is that our
reconceptualization of the apprenticeship proposal as a college-level education program, combined with our proposal that everyone
who gets the general education credential be entitled to a free year of higher education (combined federal and state funds) will have
a decided impact on the calculations of cost for the college loan/public service program.
Assistance for Dropouts are the Long-Term Unemployed
the problem of upgrading the skills of high school dropouts and the adult hard core unemployed is especially difficult. It is also at
the heart of the problem of our inner cities. All the evidence indicates that what is needed is something with all the important
characteristics of a non-residential Job Corps-like program. The problem with the Job Corps is that it is operated directly by the
federal government and is therefore not embedded at all in the infrastructure of local communities. The way to solve this problem is
to create a new urban program that is locally — not federally — organized and administered, but which must operate in a way that
uses something like the federal standards for contracting for Job Corps services. In this way, local employers, neighborhood
organizations and other local service providers could meet the need, but requiring local authorities to use the federal standards would
assure high quality results. Programs for high school dropouts and the hard-core unemployed would probably have to be separately
organized, though the services provided would be much the same. Federal funds would be offered on a matching basis with state
and local funds for this purpose. These programs should be fully integrated with the revitalized employment service. The local labor
market board would be the local authority responsible for receiving the funds and contracting with providers for the services. It
would provide diagnostic, placement and testing services. We would eliminate the targeted jobs credit and use the money now spent
on that program to finance these operations. Funds can also be used from the JOBS program in the welfare reform act. This will
not be sufficient, however, because there is currently no federal money available to meet the needs of hard-core unemployed males
(mostly Black) and so new monies will have to be appropriated for the purpose.
Commentary:
As you know very well, the High Skills, Competitive Workforce Act sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Hatfield and Congressmen
Gephardt and Regula provides a ready-made vehicle for advancing many of the ideas we have outlined. To foster a good working
relationship with the Congress, we suggest that, to the extent possible, the framework of these companion bills be used to frame the
President's proposals. You may not know that we have put together a large group of representatives of Washington-based
organizations to come to a consensus around the ideas in America's Choice. They are full of energy and very committed to this joint
effort. If they are made part of the process of framing the legislative proposals, they can be expected to be strong support for them
when they arrive on the Hill. As you think about the assembly of these ideas into specific legislative proposals, you may also want to
take into account the packaging ideas that come later in this letter.
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAM
The situation with respect to elementary and secondary education is very different from adult education and training. In the latter
case, a new vision and a whole new structure is required. In the former, there is increasing acceptance of a new vision and
structure among the public at large, within the relevant professional groups and in Congress. There is also a lot of existing activity
on which to build. So we confine ourselves here to describing some of those activities that can be used to launch the Clinton
education program.
Standard Setting
Legislation to accelerate the process of national standard setting in education was contained in
the conference report on S.2 and HR 4323 that was defeated on a recent cloture vote. Solid majorities
were behind the legislation in both houses of Congress. While some of us would quarrel with a few of the details, we think the new
administration should support the early reintroduction of this legislation with whatever changes it thinks fit. This legislation does not
establish a national body to create a national examination system. We think that is the right choice for now.
[Page: E1824]
Systemic Chance in Public Education
The conference report on S.2 and HR 4323 also contained a comprehensive program to support systemic change in public
education. Here again, some of us would quibble with some of the particulars, but we believe that the administration's objectives
would be well served by endorsing the resubmission of this legislation, modified as it sees fit.
Federal Programs for the Disadvantaged
The established federal education programs for the disadvantaged need to be thoroughly overhauled to reflect an emphasis on results
for the students rather than compliance with the regulations. A national commission on Chapter 1, the largest of these programs,
chaired by David Hornbeck, has designed a radically new version of this legislation, with the active participation of many of the
advocacy groups. Other groups have been similarly engaged. We think the new administration should quickly endorse the work of
the national commission and introduce its proposals early next year. It is unlikely that this legislation will pass before the deadline —
two years away — for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but early endorsement of this new
approach by the administration will send a strong signal to the Congress and will greatly affect the climate in which other parts of
the act will be considered.
Public Choice Technology, Integrated Health and Human Services, Curriculum Resources, High Performance Management,
Professional Development and Research and Development
The restructuring of the schools that is envisioned in S.2 and HR 4323 is not likely to succeed unless the schools have a lot of
information about how to do it and real assistance in getting it done. The areas in which this help is needed are suggested by the
heading of this section. One of the most cost-effective things the federal government could do is to provide support for research,
development and technical assistance of the schools on these topics. The new Secretary of Education should be directed to propose
a strategy for doing just that, on a scale sufficient to the need. Existing programs of research, development and assistance should be
examined as possible sources of funds for these purposes. Professional development is a special case. To build the restructured
system will require an enormous amount of professional development and the time in which professionals can take advantage of
such a resource. Both cost a lot of money. One of the priorities for the new education secretary should be the development of
strategies for dealing with these problems. But here, as elsewhere, there are some existing programs in the Department of Education
whose funds can be redirected for this purpose, programs that are not currently informed by the goals that we have spelled out.
Much of what we have in mind here can be accomplished through the reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. Legislation for that reauthorization was prepared for the last session of Congress, but did not pass. That legislation
was informed by a deep distrust of the Republican administration, rather than the vision put forward by the Clinton campaign, but
that can and should be remedied on the next round.
Early Childhood Education
The president-elect has committed himself to a great expansion in the funding of Head Start. We agree. But the design of the
program should be changed to reflect several important requirements. The quality of professional preparation for the people who
staff these programs is very low and there are no standards that apply to their employment. The same kind of standard setting we
have called for in the rest of this plan should inform the approach to this program. Early childhood education should be combined
with quality day care to provide wrap-around programs that enable working parents to drop off their children at the beginning of the
workday and pick them up at the end. Full funding for the very poor should be combined with matching funds to extend the tuition
paid by middle class parents to make sure that these programs are not officially segregated by income. The growth of the program
should be phased in, rather than done all at once, so that quality problems can be addressed along the way, based on developing
examples of best practice. These and other related issues need to be addressed, in our judgment, before the new administration
commits itself on the specific form of increased support for Head Start.
Putting the package together:
Here we remind you of what we said at the beginning of this letter about timing the legislative agenda. We propose that you
assemble the ideas just described into four high priority packages that will enable you to move quickly on the campaign promises:
The first would use your proposal for an apprenticeship system as the keystone of the strategy for putting the whole new
postsecondary training system in place. It would consist of the proposal for postsecondary standards, the Collaborative Design and
Development proposal, the technical assistance proposal and the postsecondary education finance proposal.
The second would combine the initiatives on dislocated workers, the rebuilt employment service and the new system of labor
market boards as the Clinton administration's employment security program, built on the best practices anywhere in the world. This
is the backbone of a system for assuring adult workers in our society that they need never again watch with dismay as their jobs
disappear and their chances of ever getting a good job again go with them.
The third would concentrate on the overwhelming problems of our inner cities, combining most of the elements of the first and
second packages into a special program to greatly raise the work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our great cities.
The fourth would enable you to take advantage of legislation on which Congress has already been working to advance the
elementary and secondary reform agenda. It would combine the successor to HR 4323 and S.2 (incorporating the systemic reforms
agenda and the board for student performance standards), with the proposal for revamping Chapter 1.
Organizing the Executive Branch for Human Resouces Development
The issue here is how to organize the federal government to make sure that the new system is actually built as a seamless web in
the field, where it counts, and that program gets a fast start with a first-rate team behind it.
We propose, first, that the President appoint a National Council on Human Resources Development. It would consist of the relevant
key White House officials, cabinet members and members of Congress. It would also include a small number of governors,
educators, business executives, labor leaders and advocates for minorities and the poor. It would be established in such a way as to
assure continuity of membership across administrations, so that the consensus it forges will outlast any one administration. It would
be charged with recommending broad policy on a national system of human resources development to the President and the
Congress, assessing the effectiveness and promise of current programs and proposing new ones. It would be staffed by senior
officials on the Domestic Policy Council staff of the President.
Second, we propose that a new agency be created, the National Institute for Learning, Work and Service. Creation of this agency
would signal instantly the new administration's commitment to putting the continuing education and training of the `forgotten half'
on a par with the preparation of those who have historically been given the resources to go to 'college,' and to integrate the two
systems, not with a view to dragging down the present system and those it serves, but rather to make good on the promise that
everyone will have access to the kind of education that only a small minority have had access to up to now. To this agency would
be assigned the functions now performed by the assistant secretary for employment and training, the assistant secretary for
vocational education and the assistant secretary for higher education. The agency would be staffed by people specifically recruited
from all over the country for the purpose. The staff would be small, high powered and able to move quickly to implement the policy
initiatives of the new President in the field of human resources development.
The closest existing model to what we have in mind is the National Science Board and the National Science Foundation, with the
Council in the place of the Board and the Institute in the place of the Foundation. But our council would be advisory, whereas the
Board is governing. If you do not like the idea of a permanent Council, you might consider the idea of a temporary President's Task
Force, constituted much as the Council would be.
In this scheme, the Department of Education would be free to focus on putting the new student performance standards in place and
managing the programs that will take the leadership in the national restructuring of the schools. Much of the financing and
disbursement functions of the higher education program would move to the Treasury Department, leaving the higher education staff
in the new Institute to focus on matters of substance.
In any case, as you can see, we believe that some extraordinary measure well short of actually merging the departments of labor
and education is required to move the new agenda with dispatch.
Getting Consensus on the Vision
Radical changes in attitudes, values and beliefs are required to move any combination of these agendas. The federal government will
have little direct leverage on many of the actors involved. For much of what must be done, a new, broad consensus will be
required. What role can the new administration play in forging that consensus and how should it go about doing it?
At the narrowest level, the agenda cannot be moved unless there is agreement among the governors, the President and the
Congress. Bill's role at the Charlottesville summit leads naturally to a reconvening of that group, perhaps with the addition of key
members of Congress and others.
But we think that having an early summit on the subject of the whole human resources agenda would be risky, for many reasons.
Better to build on Bill's enormous success during the campaign with national talk shows, in school gymnasiums and the bus trips.
He could start on the consensus-building progress this way, taking his message directly to the public, while submitting his legislative
agenda and working it on the Hill. After six months or so, when the public has warmed to the ideas and the legislative packages are
about to get into hearings, then you might consider some form of summit, broadened to include not only the governors, but also key
members of Congress and others whose support and influence are important. This way, Bill can be sure that the agenda is his, and
he can go into it with a groundswell of support behind him.
• • •
That's it. None of us doubt that you have thought long and hard about many of these things and have probably gone way beyond
what we have laid out in many areas. But we hope that there is something here that you can use. We would, of course, be very
happy to flesh out these ideas at greater length and work with anyone you choose to make them fit the work that you have been
doing.
Very best wishes from all of us to you and Bill.
[signed: Marc]
Marc Tucker
END
| Lessons From 40 Years of Education 'Reform' Let's abolish local school districts and finally adopt national standards. Wall Street Journal Op-Ed December 1, 2008 By Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. While the economic news has most Americans in a state of near depression, hope abounds today that the country may use the current economic crisis as leverage to address some longstanding problems. Nowhere is that prospect for progress more worthy than the crisis in our public education system. So, from someone who realized rather glumly last week that he has been working at school reform for 40 years, here is a prescription for leadership from the Obama administration. We must start with the recognition that, despite decade after decade of reform efforts, our public K-12 schools have not improved. We can point to individual schools and some entire districts that have advanced, but the system as a whole is still failing. High school and college graduation rates, test scores, the number of graduates majoring in science and engineering all are flat or down over the past two decades. Disappointingly, the relative performance of our students has suffered compared to those of other nations. As a former CEO, I am worried about what this will mean for our future workforce. It is most crucial for our political leaders to ask why we are at this point -- why after millions of pages, in thousands of reports, from hundreds of commissions and task forces, financed by billions of dollars, have we failed to achieve any significant progress? Answering this question correctly is the key to finally remaking our public schools. This is a complex problem, but countless experiments and analyses have clearly indicated we need to do four straightforward things to bring fundamental changes to K-12 education: 1) Set high academic standards for all of our kids, supported by a rigorous curriculum. [Questions from Peyton: Who writes the standards? Will you require teachers to teach fuzzy math? Social studies rather than history? Whole language instead of phonics/phonemic awareness?] 2) Greatly improve the quality of teaching in our classrooms, supported by substantially higher compensation for our best teachers. 3) Measure student and teacher performance on a systematic basis, supported by tests and assessments. 4) Increase "time on task" for all students; this means more time in school each day, and a longer school year. Everything else either does not matter (e.g., smaller class sizes) or is supportive of these four steps (e.g., vastly improve schools of education). Lack of effort is not the cause of our 30-year inability to solve our education problem. Not only have we had all those thousands of studies and task forces, but we have seen many courageous and talented individuals pushing hard to move the system. Leaders such as Joel Klein (New York City), Michelle Rhee (Washington, D.C.) and Paul Vallas (New Orleans) have challenged the system, and elected officials from both sides of the political spectrum have also fought valiantly for change. So where does that leave us? If the problem isn't "what to do," nor is it a failure of commitment, what is stopping us? I believe the problem lies with the structure and corporate governance of our public schools. We have over 15,000 school districts in America; each of them, in its own way, is involved in standards, curriculum, teacher selection, classroom rules and so on. This unbelievably unwieldy structure is incapable of executing a program of fundamental change. While we have islands of excellence as a result of great reform programs, we continually fail to scale up systemic change. Therefore, I recommend that President-elect Barack Obama convene a meeting of our nation's governors and seek agreement to the following: - Abolish all local school districts, save 70 (50 states; 20 largest cities). Some states may choose to leave some of the rest as community service organizations, but they would have no direct involvement in the critical task of establishing standards, selecting teachers, and developing curricula. - Establish a set of national standards for a core curriculum. I would suggest we start with four subjects: reading, math, science and social studies. - Establish a National Skills Day on which every third, sixth, ninth and 12th-grader would be tested against the national standards. Results would be published nationwide for every school in America. - Establish national standards for teacher certification and require regular re-evaluations of teacher skills. Increase teacher compensation to permit the best teachers (as measured by advances in student learning) to earn well in excess of $100,000 per year, and allow school leaders to remove underperforming teachers. - Extend the school day and the school year to effectively add 20 more days of schooling for all K-12 students. I can predict that three questions will be raised about these measures: First, how can we set national standards when we have a strong tradition of local school autonomy? The answer is that the American people are way ahead of our politicians here: Poll after poll shows they support national standards. [Question from Peyton: which polls? funded by whom?] Second, won't this take many years to implement? No, if we follow a focused, pragmatic approach. While ideally we want all 50 states to participate, we can get started with 30. The rest will be driven to abandon their "see no evil" blinders by their citizens as the original group achieves momentum and success. Moreover, we do not have to start from scratch on the national standards. Experts can quickly develop an initial set just by drawing on existing domestic and foreign programs. Third, how do we pay for all of this? In three ways: We will save billions by consolidating the operations of 15,000 school districts. [Question from Peyton: What proof do you have that consolidation will save any money long term? This is a false claim as there is none.] The U.S. Department of Education can direct all of its discretionary funds to this effort. And we need to drive into the consciousness of every American politician that education is not an expense. It is, rather, the most important investment we can make as a country. H.G. Wells remarked that "history is a race between education and catastrophe." For the first time in America's history, we may be losing that race. We can win, but we have to act quickly and decisively. Mr. Gerstner, a former CEO of IBM, was chairman of the Teaching Commission (2003-2006), which reported on ways to improve the quality of public school teaching. |
It's hard to find a chart like this, one which includes all public school costs including construction, coupled with test scores --
with the historical notes such as the start of New/Fuzzy math. Folks like Louis Gerstner (see his WSJ op-e at right) an US
DOE Education Secretary Arne Duncan don't show us such charts. Hats off to Iowalive for preparing this one.
Is Iowa alone? An anomaly?
Hardly. Look at this report from University of Washington instructor Cliff Mass:
with the historical notes such as the start of New/Fuzzy math. Folks like Louis Gerstner (see his WSJ op-e at right) an US
DOE Education Secretary Arne Duncan don't show us such charts. Hats off to Iowalive for preparing this one.
Is Iowa alone? An anomaly?
Hardly. Look at this report from University of Washington instructor Cliff Mass:
There are as many examples possible as there are states, school districts, colleges and universities.
Solutions?
There are many. Best way to begin a meaningful dialogue with your school district about both its curricula and its spending is to
persuade your superintendent and board to voluntarily post the district's check register online. Start asking questions; has the new
reading program any peer-reviewed results? Ask your trustees to sign voluntary ethics pledges, both the easiest and only proven
way to start putting a stop to corruption and waste.
This is all do-able friends. It's never too late. Our schools are as they are because we let them become that way. It's up to us to
come to their rescue. If you don't think this is important, remember that the folks who voted for president in 2008 are the ones
who grew up with fuzzy math which results in fuzzy thinking.
Solutions?
There are many. Best way to begin a meaningful dialogue with your school district about both its curricula and its spending is to
persuade your superintendent and board to voluntarily post the district's check register online. Start asking questions; has the new
reading program any peer-reviewed results? Ask your trustees to sign voluntary ethics pledges, both the easiest and only proven
way to start putting a stop to corruption and waste.
This is all do-able friends. It's never too late. Our schools are as they are because we let them become that way. It's up to us to
come to their rescue. If you don't think this is important, remember that the folks who voted for president in 2008 are the ones
who grew up with fuzzy math which results in fuzzy thinking.
| Transparency history Llano ISD FOIA conviction Edgewood ISD PD re FOIA Progress by March 2007 1st year ann'y: Oct. 2007 Gov.Perry & Comm.Scott |
| WHO'S ATTENDING YOUR SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS? Follow the money in our vendor-driven schools: 15 vendors & special interests at board meetings |
| P E Y T O N W O L C O T T |
How we take back our children's education: one person, one question, one school at a time. |
| FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a republic. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Chapter 1, Section 107 which states: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright," the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use" you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
| ATTENTION EDUCATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS: Every attempt possible has been made to verify all sources and information. In the event you feel an error has been made, please contact us immediately. Thank you. NOTICE: All individuals mentioned on this site are presumed innocent unless they have been found guilty in a court of law. |
| Copyright 1999-2010 Peyton Wolcott |
"Walk softly and carry a big stick." -- Teddy Roosevelt "Trust but verify." -- Ronald Reagan |
| Just because you can doesn't mean you should. |
| H o w w e t a k e b a c k o u r c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i o n : o n e p e r s o n , o n e q u e s t i o n , o n e s c h o o l a t a t i m e . |
| AZ CA KS MD MO OH OK KeyWest CreditCards SLAPP TX Senator John Cornyn Edgewood 1 2345 CleburneISD KatyISD BremondISD LlanoISD |
| Check Registers US TX Flyer Ask your district Set goals/organize Ask lots of questions School Board Ethics Pledges Watchdogs: AngryActivist Alert PR |
| PEYTON WOLCOTT'S 6 SIMPLE SUGGESTIONS FOR SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT S: How you can rebuild public trust and save at least $75 per student this next year. 1. End discretionary spending. Set an example for your staff; let them know you mean business about running a tighter ship: No trips, no conferences, no meals, no credit cards. If you want to learn more about something, use Google. Do a webinar. Read a newsletter. No golf games with vendors, ever. No chauffeurs, no rental cars. Stay home, do your work and keep your nose clean. 2. Reduce administrative costs. Go through your administrative staff roster and cut every other job, starting with getting rid of all PR and marketing. No advisors, no consultants. Learn how to really read a budget. Put your check register and all wire transfers online. 3. Ethics. No nepotism. Let your wife and kids earn a living in a field other than education. No board members' spouses working in the district. Conduct all discussions with vendors and potential vendors in the open; invite your public to watch and ask questions. Throw away your contract and work year by year. Move your chair off the dais at board meetings. You're not a team member with your elected trustees. You're not equal to them. They're your boss. 4. No construction. If you're the rare district truly experiencing sufficient growth to justify building new schools, splinter off that population and let them start their own new school district or charter school. They might be able to take over an abandoned church or office building for much less than the Taj Mahal you had in mind. 5. Back-to-basics curriculum. Math table (1st grade: add, 2nd grade: subtract, 3rd grade multiply, 4th grade divide) daily drill. You made sure your own kids learned the basics at home or with tutors; why shouldn't all children have that same opportunity? Ditto for phonics. Classical literature. History, not social studies. No more block scheduling. Daily P.E. for all. Emphasize individual effort and accomplishment. 6. Attitude. You're a public servant, not a Third World dictator. Practice humility and gratitude. Remember when your employees laugh at your jokes or tell you you're cool or vendors marvel at your every utterance that they're all sucking up to you. Remember why you got into education to begin with. Sell your house in the gated community and buy one in the middle of a real subdivision like your average parents and taxpayers can afford. Let yourself be driven not by the latest platitude you picked up at the latest education conference but by the same wonderful noble desire to educate kids that got you into this field. |
| Ethics pledges Corruption Team of 8 Nationalization NCLB/Pearson $1.4 B (TX) Transparency 2006 Lax oversight Lobbyists 1 2 3 PassTheTrash 1 2 |
| Edu-Monopoly EduInc Internal Controls Tech Audits ERDI Financial Exigency Laptops Credit cards Supes travel/meals Edu-Conferences TASA MidWinter GORGE-ous Supes/Golf/Vendors 1 2 3 |
| Terms & Conditions: Sorry to have to include this; some groups--God bless them--have copied my research and published it as their own. |
| Robin Hood & 22 'equity' failures: MALDEF's 22 Edgewood districts cost Texans billions in failed academics & extravagance. |
| How to persuade your district: Friendly works best-- take the Golden Rule with you when asking your schools to post checks. Testimonials: issues & concerns solved. |
| Welcome, America -- glad you're finding this no-ads website useful! #1 on Google & Yahoo of 256,000,000! |
| Texas Hill Country - Mesquite and Wildflowers Boerne |
| WELCOME, Washington state! Public school checks now online in 34 states, 600+ school districts, in 3 years! |
05.29.09
| Fox News mention |
| Texas Education Service Centers posting check registers |
At least some of
Texas' 20 Regional
Education Service
Centers have already
begun posting their
check registers online.
Hats off to the
following:
Texas' 20 Regional
Education Service
Centers have already
begun posting their
check registers online.
Hats off to the
following:
Region 10
Richardson, Texas
Choose your month
here:
www.region10.org/administrators
/CheckRegisterPosting.html
Richardson, Texas
Choose your month
here:
www.region10.org/administrators
/CheckRegisterPosting.html
Region 1
Edinburg,
Texas
Pick a month here
www.esc1.net/12931081413513
7920/blank/browse.asp?A=383&
BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=55
565&1293Nav=|&NodeID=1450
Edinburg,
Texas
Pick a month here
www.esc1.net/12931081413513
7920/blank/browse.asp?A=383&
BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=55
565&1293Nav=|&NodeID=1450
Region 9
Wichita Falls,
Texas
Pick a month here:
www.esc9.net/vnews/display.v/
SEC/Public%20Information%3
E%3ECheck%20Register
Wichita Falls,
Texas
Pick a month here:
www.esc9.net/vnews/display.v/
SEC/Public%20Information%3
E%3ECheck%20Register
Region 8
Mt. Pleasant,
Texas
Choose a month here:
www.reg8.net/default.aspx?nam
e=admin.checkregister
Mt. Pleasant,
Texas
Choose a month here:
www.reg8.net/default.aspx?nam
e=admin.checkregister
Coming soon to your state: US DOE's Race to the Bottom --
as previewed in Iowa
By Peyton Wolcott
Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / 3:20 a.m. - Updated Wednesday, January 6, 2010 / 12:07 a.m.
as previewed in Iowa
By Peyton Wolcott
Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / 3:20 a.m. - Updated Wednesday, January 6, 2010 / 12:07 a.m.
| ABOUT EMAIL ARCHIVES FOLLOW THE MONEY NATIONALIZATION INTERNAL CONTROLS PR FOR THE ANGRY & THE POSITIVE STATES SCHOOL DISTRICTS |
Public Ed Commentary
Remember that famous definition of insanity, the one attributed to Einstein who reportedly said it's crazy to keep doing the
same thing and expect different results each time?
We've been throwing pricey failed unproven experimental curriculum programs at our students for decades now. Results?
Half of our kids entering college -- the 1/2 to 3/4 lucky enough to not drop out before graduation -- need remedial
instruction in core subjects such as reading and math. Are we as a nation finally ready to say, 'Enough'?
same thing and expect different results each time?
We've been throwing pricey failed unproven experimental curriculum programs at our students for decades now. Results?
Half of our kids entering college -- the 1/2 to 3/4 lucky enough to not drop out before graduation -- need remedial
instruction in core subjects such as reading and math. Are we as a nation finally ready to say, 'Enough'?
| Motivated by the declining math skills of entering UW freshmen and the poor math educations given to my own children, last quarter I taught Atmospheric Sciences 101, a large lecture class with a mix of students, and gave them a math diagnostic test as I have done in the past. The results were stunning, in a very depressing way. This was an easy test, including elementary and middle school math problems. And these are students attending a science class at the State's flagship university--these should be the creme of the crop of our high school graduates with high GPAs. And yet most of them can't do essential basic math-- operations needed for even the most essential problem solving . . . . Consider these embarrassing statistics from the exam: The overall grade was 58%
I could go on, but you get the message. If many of our state's best students are mathematically illiterate, as shown by this exam, can you imagine what is happening to the others--those going to community college or no college at all? Quite simply, we are failing our children and crippling their ability to participate in an increasingly mathematical world. I have even heard from carpenters complaining they are finding it difficult to hire new apprentices that can do the calculations needed to build a house. When I buy something, cashiers have difficulty making change. |
- Beyond FOIA: Why it's
more effective to
persuade your local
school district to post
its checks online than
to post them on a
private or 501c website.
- Is 'equity' equitable?
More about MALDEF &
Robin Hood
- Printable flyer to share
with your board; many
testimonials from
school leaders who
have already
successfully posted
their districts' checks
online countering all
usual opposition points
(cost, technology, etc.).
- Special interests in
your district and at your
board meetings: Do
you know who they are
and what they have to
do with spending?
- If there was a major
precipitating incident
behind the check
registers, this was it.
| CHECK REGISTERS |
Questions reporters
& others ask most:
Q1: When did this grass-
roots check register
project start, and why?
A1: We compiled the first
national roster on October
1, 2009. There were
several precipitating
incidents, including this; it
was clear that
administrators, lobbyists
and vendors didn't like
public records requests.
Q2: How many school
districts are now online
in how many states?
A2: As of January 2010
there are over 600 in 34
states.
Q3: How quickly has this
grown?
A3: When we first started
asking districts to
voluntarily post, there
were only a handful of
districts in a handful of
states posting.
Q4: How can I find out if
my district is online? Are
any in my state online?
A4: You can look them up
on these rosters:
United States (A-L) (M-W)
Texas (A-L) (M-Z)
Q5: How do I make my
district put its checks
online?
A5: Unless we're
dictators we can't make
anybody do anything -- but
we can persuade. Here
are some easy to follow
directions based on
treating your schools as
you'd like them to treat
you. (The Golden Rule
really does work.) Just
like in baking or anything
else involving special
skills or plans, the steps
we've found that work are
successful 100% of the
time when followed as
scripted; just like making
pastry, shortcuts lead to
failure.
Q6: Why don't you just
pass a law?
Q6: Have you ever tried
getting a law passed? As
the Texas Public Policy
Foundation and similar
groups elsewhere have
learned, the folks who
stand to benefit the least
from public ed financial
transparency are a very
active lobbying force,
especially in larger states
where more money is
involved in public
education. (With just 17
school districts, only
Delaware has a state law
requiring schools to post
their checks online.)
& others ask most:
Q1: When did this grass-
roots check register
project start, and why?
A1: We compiled the first
national roster on October
1, 2009. There were
several precipitating
incidents, including this; it
was clear that
administrators, lobbyists
and vendors didn't like
public records requests.
Q2: How many school
districts are now online
in how many states?
A2: As of January 2010
there are over 600 in 34
states.
Q3: How quickly has this
grown?
A3: When we first started
asking districts to
voluntarily post, there
were only a handful of
districts in a handful of
states posting.
Q4: How can I find out if
my district is online? Are
any in my state online?
A4: You can look them up
on these rosters:
United States (A-L) (M-W)
Texas (A-L) (M-Z)
Q5: How do I make my
district put its checks
online?
A5: Unless we're
dictators we can't make
anybody do anything -- but
we can persuade. Here
are some easy to follow
directions based on
treating your schools as
you'd like them to treat
you. (The Golden Rule
really does work.) Just
like in baking or anything
else involving special
skills or plans, the steps
we've found that work are
successful 100% of the
time when followed as
scripted; just like making
pastry, shortcuts lead to
failure.
Q6: Why don't you just
pass a law?
Q6: Have you ever tried
getting a law passed? As
the Texas Public Policy
Foundation and similar
groups elsewhere have
learned, the folks who
stand to benefit the least
from public ed financial
transparency are a very
active lobbying force,
especially in larger states
where more money is
involved in public
education. (With just 17
school districts, only
Delaware has a state law
requiring schools to post
their checks online.)
| Bringing you the information and tools you need in order to improve public education and lower taxes and spending; during the past two decades of the voucher debate an entire generation has grown up in the public school system. If you don't think this is important look at the Nov. 2008 election where folks voted based on emotions and hope rather than facts. Let's put a stop to the school-to-prison pipeline -- and keep our public schools locally run, strong and free.. |
| Are your district's checks on their website? If not, why not? 600 already are, in 34 states, in just 3 years. Simple how-to here works 100% of the time--if no shortcuts. |
US DOE
What's glittery about "Race to the Top" turns out to be fools' gold
By Peyton Wolcott
Updated Saturday, January 16, 2010 / 7:57 a.m.
What's glittery about "Race to the Top" turns out to be fools' gold
By Peyton Wolcott
Updated Saturday, January 16, 2010 / 7:57 a.m.
There's a sucker born every minute, W.C. Fields used to say.
Just as voters are beginning to understand that the current federal health care debate is less about improving health care than it is a
further unconstitutional federal encroachment into our private lives, so too comes a dawning recognition in the clear light of day
that all that glitters about the feds' current "Race to the Top" initiative from the United States Department of Education is fools'
gold.
As Texas Governor Rick Perry said earlier this week in Houston, "When you think about this coming on the heels of the health
care debate, Washington is attempting to take over yet another very essential function and make even more personal decisions for
our citizens. Do Texans want to experience the mediocrity of an unresponsive inefficient federal government in another key part
of our lives?" He added, "You can be sure a competitive state like Texas is right in their crosshairs. Arne Duncan wants to
eliminate what he cals the "extreme variation in standards across America." That is spoken like a true bureaucrat, someone more
concerned with control and comfortable predictability than in . . . effectiveness, competition or most importantly genuinely
improving the lives of our children."
Just as voters are beginning to understand that the current federal health care debate is less about improving health care than it is a
further unconstitutional federal encroachment into our private lives, so too comes a dawning recognition in the clear light of day
that all that glitters about the feds' current "Race to the Top" initiative from the United States Department of Education is fools'
gold.
As Texas Governor Rick Perry said earlier this week in Houston, "When you think about this coming on the heels of the health
care debate, Washington is attempting to take over yet another very essential function and make even more personal decisions for
our citizens. Do Texans want to experience the mediocrity of an unresponsive inefficient federal government in another key part
of our lives?" He added, "You can be sure a competitive state like Texas is right in their crosshairs. Arne Duncan wants to
eliminate what he cals the "extreme variation in standards across America." That is spoken like a true bureaucrat, someone more
concerned with control and comfortable predictability than in . . . effectiveness, competition or most importantly genuinely
improving the lives of our children."
Friends, while there is of course a decades-old backstory to this, the most recent chapter appears to have taken many by
surprise. I prepared this brief history above after conversations over the past few weeks with education leaders, policy folks
and other related professionals across America because I was struck by a general lack of understanding of what the US DOE's
surprise. I prepared this brief history above after conversations over the past few weeks with education leaders, policy folks
and other related professionals across America because I was struck by a general lack of understanding of what the US DOE's
What's this Race to the Top? Why a race?
By Peyton Wolcott
Saturday, January 16, 2010 / 11:08 a.m.
By Peyton Wolcott
Saturday, January 16, 2010 / 11:08 a.m.
| Monday February 8, 2010 |
The feds are calling it a race because if we slow down enough to follow the money and the politics we can clearly see it's a
disguise for replacing state and local control with forced national standards and nationalization of our local school districts. It
didn't spring from nowhere; just like Chairman Mao's Little Red Book and Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, cigarette-seller and
would-be education reformer Louis Gerstner laid it all out for us more than a year ago in a little-noted Wall Street Journal
op-ed; it's at far right along with Marc Tucker's (what, you don't recognize his name?) letter to Hillary (you do recognize hers)
which follows. Question is, why would we listen to a fellow like Louie, criticized by government officials for using cartoons to
sell cigarettes to children? Oh, you didn't know about his RJ Reynolds chairmanship? Here's a brief visual depiction of the
feds' attempted nationalization of our schools:
disguise for replacing state and local control with forced national standards and nationalization of our local school districts. It
didn't spring from nowhere; just like Chairman Mao's Little Red Book and Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, cigarette-seller and
would-be education reformer Louis Gerstner laid it all out for us more than a year ago in a little-noted Wall Street Journal
op-ed; it's at far right along with Marc Tucker's (what, you don't recognize his name?) letter to Hillary (you do recognize hers)
which follows. Question is, why would we listen to a fellow like Louie, criticized by government officials for using cartoons to
sell cigarettes to children? Oh, you didn't know about his RJ Reynolds chairmanship? Here's a brief visual depiction of the
feds' attempted nationalization of our schools:
| Lou Gerstner's manifesto published in The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 2008 |
| From top: Lou Gerstner; Chairman Mao & Adolph Hitler told us what they wanted to do ahead of time. |
| Mr. & Mrs. Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. |
| COZY MOMENT Arne Duncan with Eli Broad at Broad's Washington, DC inauguration party (2009) |
so- called Common Core Standards
and Race to the Top entail; while
most of these good folks had looked
closely at the grading rubric, most
had missed seeing the forest,
swamp and quagmire.
Glittery carrots
The promise of a small carrot --
the possibility of a one-time
$75-150 per student payment
estimated to average for most in the
and Race to the Top entail; while
most of these good folks had looked
closely at the grading rubric, most
had missed seeing the forest,
swamp and quagmire.
Glittery carrots
The promise of a small carrot --
the possibility of a one-time
$75-150 per student payment
estimated to average for most in the
| MORE COZY COMPANY: Arne Duncan, Vicki Phillips (head of Bill Gates' domestic edu-division) and President Obama. |
$80 range -- for states adopting national standards (despite specific exclusion of federal fund-
ing for such in the 2003 No Child Left Behind Act) should come as no surprise given Eli
Broad's involvement in the Race to the Top; after all, it's the same carrot he's been
dangling with his Broad Prize for years: a slight chance at dollars in return for doing the
donor's bidding. Despite many requests the Broad organization has yet to produce
documentation evidencing any quantitative basis for their annual prize (who got how
many points for what); absent that, the glittery-appearing Race to the Top will be as
subjective as the Broad Prize.
ing for such in the 2003 No Child Left Behind Act) should come as no surprise given Eli
Broad's involvement in the Race to the Top; after all, it's the same carrot he's been
dangling with his Broad Prize for years: a slight chance at dollars in return for doing the
donor's bidding. Despite many requests the Broad organization has yet to produce
documentation evidencing any quantitative basis for their annual prize (who got how
many points for what); absent that, the glittery-appearing Race to the Top will be as
subjective as the Broad Prize.
A question as we part: Are there any groups in Washington other than Cato that have not accepted Bill Gates' money or
Eli Broad's?
Eli Broad's?
| Marc Tucker's "Letter to Hillary" (1992) |
| Comments from Minnesota Maple River Education Coalition PAC Carrots and sticks The Letter admits: "Creating such a system means sweeping aside countless programs, building new ones, combining funding authorities, changing deeply embedded institutional structures and so on. .... Trying to ram it down everyone's throat would engender overwhelming opposition." So the letter proposes to use bribery, and that requires an expansion of federal power. It expands the executive branch It authorizes the executive branch to bypass Congress and award "grants", in other words, bribes, "on the order of $20 million per year to each state". In addition, the executive branch would have free-wheeling power to bypass any uncooperative state and local governments, and fund directly to local agencies: "A number of organizations would be funded. .... Some of the funds for this function should be provided directly to the states and cities, some to the technical assistance agency." Highly centralized control The proposal "is interwoven with a new approach to governing." That approach involves pushing power away from students, families, and communities, and toward highly centralized authorities. "We propose that a new agency be created, the National Institute for Learning, Work and Service. .... The staff would be small, high powered and able to move quickly" Authorities insulated from voters wrath The controlling authorities are thoroughly insulated from voters wrath. This occurs because the system is highly centralized, and such entities are difficult for voters to affect. |
11 November 1992
Hillary Clinton
The Governor's Mansion
1800 Canter Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
Dear Hillary:
I still cannot believe you won. But utter delight that you did pervades
all the circles in which I move. I met last Wednesday in
David Rockefeller's office with him, John Sculley, Dave Barram
and David Haselkorn. It was a great celebration. Both John and
David R. were more expansive than I have ever seen them — literally
radiating happiness. My own view and theirs is that this country has
seized its last chance. I am fond of quoting Winston Churchill to the
effect that "America always does the right thing — after it has
exhausted all the alternatives." This election, more than anything else
in my experience, proves his point.
Hillary Clinton
The Governor's Mansion
1800 Canter Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
Dear Hillary:
I still cannot believe you won. But utter delight that you did pervades
all the circles in which I move. I met last Wednesday in
David Rockefeller's office with him, John Sculley, Dave Barram
and David Haselkorn. It was a great celebration. Both John and
David R. were more expansive than I have ever seen them — literally
radiating happiness. My own view and theirs is that this country has
seized its last chance. I am fond of quoting Winston Churchill to the
effect that "America always does the right thing — after it has
exhausted all the alternatives." This election, more than anything else
in my experience, proves his point.
Schwartz, Mike Smith and Bill Spring. Shirley Malcom, Ray
Marshall and Susan McGuire were also invited. Though these three
were not able to be present at last week's meeting, they have all
contributed by telephone to the ideas that follow. Ira Magaziner was also
invited to this meeting.
Our purpose in these meetings was to propose concrete actions that the
Clinton administration could take — between now and the inauguration, in
the first 100 days and beyond. The result, from where I sit, was really
exciting. We took a very large leap forward in terms of how to advance
the agenda on which you and we have all been working — a practical
plan for putting all the major components of the system in place within
four years, by the time Bill has to run again.
I take personal responsibility for what follows. Though I believe everyone
involved in the planning effort is in broad agreement, they may not all
agree on the details. You should also be aware that, although the plan
comes from a group closely associated with the National Center on
Education and the Economy, there was no practical way to poll our
whole Board on this plan in the time available. It represents, then, not a
proposal from our Center, but the best thinking of the group I have
named.
We think the great opportunity you have is to remold the entire American
system for human resources development, almost all of the current
components of which were put in place before World War II. The danger
is that each of the ideas that Bill advanced in the campaign in the area of
education and training could be translated individually in the ordinary
course of governing into a legislative proposal and enacted as a program.
This is the plan of least resistance. But it will lead to these programs being
grafted onto the present system, not to a new system, and the opportunity
will have been lost. If this sense of time and place is correct, it is essential
that the administration's efforts be guided by a consistent vision of what it
wants to accomplish in the field of human resource development, with
respect both to choice of key officials and the program.
Marshall and Susan McGuire were also invited. Though these three
were not able to be present at last week's meeting, they have all
contributed by telephone to the ideas that follow. Ira Magaziner was also
invited to this meeting.
Our purpose in these meetings was to propose concrete actions that the
Clinton administration could take — between now and the inauguration, in
the first 100 days and beyond. The result, from where I sit, was really
exciting. We took a very large leap forward in terms of how to advance
the agenda on which you and we have all been working — a practical
plan for putting all the major components of the system in place within
four years, by the time Bill has to run again.
I take personal responsibility for what follows. Though I believe everyone
involved in the planning effort is in broad agreement, they may not all
agree on the details. You should also be aware that, although the plan
comes from a group closely associated with the National Center on
Education and the Economy, there was no practical way to poll our
whole Board on this plan in the time available. It represents, then, not a
proposal from our Center, but the best thinking of the group I have
named.
We think the great opportunity you have is to remold the entire American
system for human resources development, almost all of the current
components of which were put in place before World War II. The danger
is that each of the ideas that Bill advanced in the campaign in the area of
education and training could be translated individually in the ordinary
course of governing into a legislative proposal and enacted as a program.
This is the plan of least resistance. But it will lead to these programs being
grafted onto the present system, not to a new system, and the opportunity
will have been lost. If this sense of time and place is correct, it is essential
that the administration's efforts be guided by a consistent vision of what it
wants to accomplish in the field of human resource development, with
respect both to choice of key officials and the program.
| (Special thanks to the Eagle Forum for keeping this pre-Internet letter alive.) |
The subject we were discussing was what you and Bill should do now about education, training and labor market policy. Following
that meeting, I chaired another in Washington on the same topic. Those present at the second meeting included Tim Barnicle,
Dave Barram, Mike Cohen, David Hornbeck, Hilary Pennington, Andy Plattner, Lauren Resnick, Betsy Brown Ruzzi, Bob
that meeting, I chaired another in Washington on the same topic. Those present at the second meeting included Tim Barnicle,
Dave Barram, Mike Cohen, David Hornbeck, Hilary Pennington, Andy Plattner, Lauren Resnick, Betsy Brown Ruzzi, Bob
| Clockwise from top left: Marc Tucker (National Center on Education & the Economy), David Rockefeller and Hillary Clinton |
Beware stray foraging camels
Long after superintendent Terry Grier's moved on to his next gig -- he's been in North Carolina, California and now Texas
in just three years -- Houston ISD students & taxpayers will still be living with Race to the Top's unintended consequences
By Peyton Wolcott
Saturday, January 23, 2010 / 10:54 a.m. - Updated Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / 9:46 a.m.
Long after superintendent Terry Grier's moved on to his next gig -- he's been in North Carolina, California and now Texas
in just three years -- Houston ISD students & taxpayers will still be living with Race to the Top's unintended consequences
By Peyton Wolcott
Saturday, January 23, 2010 / 10:54 a.m. - Updated Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / 9:46 a.m.
| Cozy: Then-San Diego CUSD superintendent Terry Grier (center) with Rotary leaders last year. |
Put yourself in Terry's shoes and it's easy to see how appealing Race
to the Top dollars might be, especially given phase two's (some of us
call it the Terry Grier addendum) bypass of state governments.
Put another way, for superintendents constantly on the prowl for more
money, RTTT might seem a benign quick cure for their short-term
income wants. Fact is, there is nothing in writing from Mr. Obama
guaranteeing that in return for the one-time per-pupil payoff, estimated
by Texas House of Representatives education committee chair Rob
Eissler to be a measly $80, that the feds will go away. Au contraire,
Beaudelaire; the $80 is the feds' camel's nose edging into the tent.
to the Top dollars might be, especially given phase two's (some of us
call it the Terry Grier addendum) bypass of state governments.
Put another way, for superintendents constantly on the prowl for more
money, RTTT might seem a benign quick cure for their short-term
income wants. Fact is, there is nothing in writing from Mr. Obama
guaranteeing that in return for the one-time per-pupil payoff, estimated
by Texas House of Representatives education committee chair Rob
Eissler to be a measly $80, that the feds will go away. Au contraire,
Beaudelaire; the $80 is the feds' camel's nose edging into the tent.
| Heads up, Houston What about Houston's business and civic leadership, the villages-living Rotary-attending RodeoHouston folks who send their own kids to private schools -- St. John's or Kinkaid or Duchesne -- or who live in upscale suburban districts? Hard to imagine why Houston's leadership is going along with the feds' scheme. Could it be because they're not personally affected by what goes on in Houston public schools and therefore don't care? They and others like them across America need to start paying attention. They can put their own kids in a temporary protective bubble -- but reality is, we live in a world dominated by public school graduates unable to tell you what 8 times 9 is without a calculator, the same folks who voted for unfounded hope and change -- is that poor woman in Florida still waiting for Mr. Obama to pay her rent and light bill and gas for her? -- in the November 2008 presidential election. |
| ED PHOTO OF THE WEEK: 2 PRESIDENTIAL TELEPROMPTERS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOM (VA) |
| President Barack Obama, accompanied by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, speaks to the media after a discussion with 6th grade students at Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church (VA), Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010. (AP) |
The good news is, folks elsewhere around Texas and the rest of the country are beginning to wonder what a camel's nose is
doing in their tent; here are some examples from Texas, starting with this thoughtful op-ed by Boerne ISD
doing in their tent; here are some examples from Texas, starting with this thoughtful op-ed by Boerne ISD
superintendent John Kelly; note the reference to Commissioner of Education Robert Scott
re the consortium of vendors who stand to profit:
re the consortium of vendors who stand to profit:
| Candidate Obama's campaign kiss for Henrietta Hughes in Fort Myers, Florida |
| Others in agreement include former Texas House education chair Paul Sadler, Rep. Larry Phillips, Sherman ISD superintendent Al Hambrick, Canyon ISD, Amarillo ISD, Keller ISD's Mark Youngs, Lake Worth ISD superintendent Janice Cooper, and assistant Ysleta ISD superintendent Jimmy Loredo. A resolution passed unanimously by Texas State Board of Education members stated, “Any attempt to impose a national curriculum and testing system is a likely precursor to a federal takeover of public schools.” As Paul Sadler pointed out last week, "The Governor is right - the history of federal legislation is more paper work and eventually a settling of requirements that leads to mediocrity. We don't need the federal dollars....this move toward more federal involvement in our local schools will ultimately diminish our voice and control of the education of our children.” Read more here. Let's hope Terry Grier and others scrambling to join the race will stop and rather than proffering their begging bowl to the feds instead save that same $80 per by cutting discretionary travel, meals and similar expenditures before they stumble on that shape-shifting camel's toe. We cannot afford the damages. |
| What happened in Michigan? After balking initially -- education leaders had by earlier this month figured out that costs for meeting the feds' paperwork demands would cancel out the small amount they'd receive -- and a statement by State Board president Kathleen Straus that she was raised by a lawyer and needed more time to study the application -- Mrs. Straus, a former Federal Reserve economist -- wound up signing the application along with the governor and the state superintendent. One can only wonder what occurred -- what considerations and persuasions surfaced -- to help her change her mind. |
| Kathleen Straus (PHOTO--Mike Ismair/America JR) |
| Our U.S. Constitution leaves responsibility for (K-12) public education to each of the states. However, various federal regulations have usurped an alarming and accelerating proportion of the state's role during the past 50 years. There are several methods employed by Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judiciary to expand federal control of education. For example, the Congress and the Supreme Court passed extensive and necessary civil rights legislation beginning in the 1960s. Who can argue with the necessity to advance that cause in our schools? But with each new law and court decision, the federal bureaucracy transmitted hundreds, now thousands of additional compliance rules for states and public schools. Many of those regulations have very little or nothing to do with civil rights. Another powerful way for the federal government to assert power is to take federal tax dollars and add stipulations for their receipt by states and school districts. As more and more federal dollars are set aside for this purpose, the Department of Education, the President and Congress hold the funds in the air and create regulatory “hoops” for states and school districts to run through. Never mind that it is the citizens of each state who have contributed those tax dollars. With local school districts straining to meet federal demands for everything from underfunded disabled student services to free lunches for impoverished students, school districts become increasingly dependent on federal dollars – and therefore find themselves “hoop weary.” Perhaps the biggest over-reach of all is the No Child Left Behind Act signed into law in accordance with the wishes of President George W. Bush and the accompanying bipartisanship support in Congress. Once again, the intention was noble – to improve the educational outcomes for millions of children. But as certain as “death and taxes,” the federal government's new foot in the door allowed our U.S. government to begin regulating almost every aspect of local public schools. As time has passed, more and more stipulations have been added in the name of “reform.” Ironically it is the Texas accountability system President Bush used as a model for the federal plan. After the U.S. Department of Education got through “improving” it, the resulting system is a sometimes redundant and often conflicting set of federal accountability standards for Texas schools. According to the Dec. 14 “Texas Education News” bulletin, Commissioner Scott recently sent letters to our Texas congressmen criticizing the U.S. Department of Education for using the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” competitive federal grant program to further usurp state educational rights. He estimates that in order for Texas to receive $750 million federal dollars, Texas must spend $3 billion dollars to comply with the accompanying regu- lations. The state would have to significantly change textbooks, curriculum, professional development, assess- ment systems and other Texas-specific initiatives in order to comply with new national standards. Commissioner Scott further asserts that a consortium of entities stand to profit from an entire overhaul of curriculum and textbooks and are therefore working with other nonprofit groups to push for the federal “Common Core Standards Initiative.” As Scott warns, I believe this federal power grab represents a further step toward the nationalization of our schools. Massive past and present federal educational funding comes under the continuing re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in addition to other similar legislation. Now it appears likely that such funding will be synched to the new “Race to the Top” efforts in order to advance the federal bureaucracy another major step. Federal stimulus dollars are now being used as a short-term measure to prop up state and federal funding of education. The obvious danger is that when such dollars are removed (as they will be next year), states and local districts must make up the difference on any services funded by those dollars. Regulatory authority will grow and likely require many services only temporarily funded by stimulus dollars. Essentially, we'll be asked to make bricks without straw. Then, as now, new cries for a federal bail-out will only augment federal power and portend worse things to come. In my opinion, federal taxes collected from Texas (and other states) ought to be re-allocated back to the states and local school districts with little or no federal intrusion. This may be “Hoop Dreams” in 2010. Absent a substantial citizen outcry, the federal government will continue to intrude itself into virtually every area of local school districts. Ten years from now, local control may be something old timers remember from the distant past – and a younger generation calls an ancient myth. |
| John P. Kelly |
The bull's eye Mr. Obama has just pinned
on Texas needs to be seen in the context of Mr.
Gates' other edu-activities
By Peyton Wolcott - Updated Thurs., Jan., 28, 2010 / 11:08 a.m.
on Texas needs to be seen in the context of Mr.
Gates' other edu-activities
By Peyton Wolcott - Updated Thurs., Jan., 28, 2010 / 11:08 a.m.
| Former Ted Kennedy aide John J. Fitzpatrick, described by the Austin Chronicle as the kind of "practical progressive" that Austin likes and needs, is now employed as executive director of the Texas High School Project which is funded by among others the Gates Foundation. |
high dropout rate. (More here.)
With this clear intent of the feds to
nationalize standards then school
districts in mind, consider that Tuesday
afternoon in Austin while Texas
Commissioner of Education Robert
Scott was earning applause from
several hundred superintendents at a
general session of the Texas
With this clear intent of the feds to
nationalize standards then school
districts in mind, consider that Tuesday
afternoon in Austin while Texas
Commissioner of Education Robert
Scott was earning applause from
several hundred superintendents at a
general session of the Texas
| (Near left) Room 408's closed doors; THSP consultant Jimmy Byrd (far right) is a former Burnet USD employee. Here to help? BUSD is not an exemplary district. |
Association of School Administrators MidWinter Conference each time he mentioned the importance
of local control in our school districts, across the street and down a long side hallway on the fourth
floor at the Hilton, far away from the crowds and public scrutiny, a small group of public school
administrators funded in part by the Gates Foundation -- a major supporter if not driver of Mr.
of local control in our school districts, across the street and down a long side hallway on the fourth
floor at the Hilton, far away from the crowds and public scrutiny, a small group of public school
administrators funded in part by the Gates Foundation -- a major supporter if not driver of Mr.
| Texas High School Project met in a room like this one at the downtown Austin Hilton--but where was the openness, the transparency? Where were the people? We caught them on the fly as they made a quick exit; here's Houston ISD's Carla Stevens: |
| The fast-walking blur at center right is THSP project manager Anna Walden who earlier closed the meeting room door when a request was made to observe her project's taxpayer-funded goings-on involving public schoolchildren. |
| Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott (above) introduced the state's new STAR accountability system on Tuesday and described why Texas is refusing to enter the Race to the Top sweepstakes; above right, the crowded main concourse; below right, a quite moment in the Hilton lobby; at far right, a friendly greeting. |
| Although as Texas Association of School Administrators executive director Johnny Veselka pointed out, TASA MidWinter is the largest education conference of its kind in the nation, the economic times have taken their toll even at Midwinter; the Governor's Ballroom, traditionally the site of lavish open-bar vendor receptions and parties, was dark Tuesday at happy hour, and the education law firm Walsh Anderson, which has for the last several years taken over all three floors of the popular Austin night spot Iron Cactus (above right) and featured free food and an open bar as part of their customer appreciation effort, instead chose this year to host a reception at their law offices. |
| Signs of the changing economic times |
| All photos by Peyton Wolcott |
Six little words in last night's State of the Union address were aimed
specifically at Texas: "Extend reforms to ALL 50 states," meaning as
part of an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (commonly
referred to as No Child Left Behind) reauthorization Mr. Obama and
the feds are going to try to impose their hasty pudding, rushed national
standards set by anonymous reviewers on all 50 states, effectively
forcing Texas to give up its sovereign rights. The next step after
standards would be as outlined by Louis Gerstner in the Wall Street
Journal in December 2008: nationalization of our local school
districts into one per state plus 20 for the largest urbans. What
would this look like? Imagine 70 Detroits -- or Chicagos, with its
specifically at Texas: "Extend reforms to ALL 50 states," meaning as
part of an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (commonly
referred to as No Child Left Behind) reauthorization Mr. Obama and
the feds are going to try to impose their hasty pudding, rushed national
standards set by anonymous reviewers on all 50 states, effectively
forcing Texas to give up its sovereign rights. The next step after
standards would be as outlined by Louis Gerstner in the Wall Street
Journal in December 2008: nationalization of our local school
districts into one per state plus 20 for the largest urbans. What
would this look like? Imagine 70 Detroits -- or Chicagos, with its
Obama's Race to the Top nationalization scheme -- conferred in secret, behind closed
doors, about the student data they've been collecting.
Gee. Whether we see the innocuously named Texas High School Project as simply a
more invasive form of spying on students, or whether we see opportunities for someone
with the corporate wherewithal of a Bill Gates to amass every conceivable factoid on
every student in America with just a few clicks of a button -- PEIMS, SAT, NAEP,
Medicaid, etc. -- however we view this turn of events, neither way feels nearly as benign
doors, about the student data they've been collecting.
Gee. Whether we see the innocuously named Texas High School Project as simply a
more invasive form of spying on students, or whether we see opportunities for someone
with the corporate wherewithal of a Bill Gates to amass every conceivable factoid on
every student in America with just a few clicks of a button -- PEIMS, SAT, NAEP,
Medicaid, etc. -- however we view this turn of events, neither way feels nearly as benign
was going to save the day -- folks not noticing or caring that he's a
Democrat and lobbyist for Pearson, the world's largest accountability
testing outfit -- so too today we have Bill Gates telling us that data
collection is the new silver bullet. THSP project manager Anna
Walden mentioned a contract. What contract? Is this like
WireGen/Dibels and the issues raised by parents about who owns the
taxpayer-funded data? Who really should own it? What about the
patent? Anybody have any new information on John Q. Porter's
role? Royalties? What about Katy ISD just south of here, their
Xpediant situation?
Here's the thing. Public institutions funded by mandatory taxes -- not
Democrat and lobbyist for Pearson, the world's largest accountability
testing outfit -- so too today we have Bill Gates telling us that data
collection is the new silver bullet. THSP project manager Anna
Walden mentioned a contract. What contract? Is this like
WireGen/Dibels and the issues raised by parents about who owns the
taxpayer-funded data? Who really should own it? What about the
patent? Anybody have any new information on John Q. Porter's
role? Royalties? What about Katy ISD just south of here, their
Xpediant situation?
Here's the thing. Public institutions funded by mandatory taxes -- not
| Wouldn't it be wonderful if Karl Rove took his whiteboard to Fox and 'splained things to America? As an act of redemption for what he did to Texas in the 90s? |
voluntary contributions --
must conduct every-
thing except names of
students out in the open.
Period. Otherwise we live in
a police state.
Speaking of money, who
paid for the THSP school
employee participants' travel
expenses? And were they
working for free or were
those ISD-funded paydays?
As a reader pointed out,
even if they took personal
days those too are taxpayer-
funded. I've asked these
questions and more of
Houston ISD's Carla
Stevens; for example,
although we know she
earns about $122,000 per
year, we don't know who
paid for her time this week
in Austin on behalf of
THSP. Was Carla the only
employee HISD sent?
Absent openness and
on-the-spot transparency
from Bill & Melinda Gates
et al, we are left to wonder
-- and ask -- and reach our
own conclusions based not
on what they say but on
what they do. More
questions coming.
must conduct every-
thing except names of
students out in the open.
Period. Otherwise we live in
a police state.
Speaking of money, who
paid for the THSP school
employee participants' travel
expenses? And were they
working for free or were
those ISD-funded paydays?
As a reader pointed out,
even if they took personal
days those too are taxpayer-
funded. I've asked these
questions and more of
Houston ISD's Carla
Stevens; for example,
although we know she
earns about $122,000 per
year, we don't know who
paid for her time this week
in Austin on behalf of
THSP. Was Carla the only
employee HISD sent?
Absent openness and
on-the-spot transparency
from Bill & Melinda Gates
et al, we are left to wonder
-- and ask -- and reach our
own conclusions based not
on what they say but on
what they do. More
questions coming.
| Only Texas -- thanks to Governor Rick Perry, Education Commissioner Robert Scott, and our State Board of Education -- all supported by those who cherish individual freedoms and local control of our school districts -- has had the courage among the 50 states to stand firm against the power grab by the United States Department of Education, the school equivalent of what Mr. Obama's crew is trying to do with healthcare. As with healthcare, Race to the Top's national curriculum standards have less to do with education and more to do with being a vehicle for increasing federal control. |
as the cheerful face THSP executive
director John Fitzpatrick tried to put on
things as he hustled me away from
Tuesday's meeting and down to the lobby.
The way he explained it, there's a
disconnect between what front office says
about students (would this be PEIMS?) and
reality; to paraphrase his comments, Bill
Gates and friends are -- as Ronald Reagan
said about the government -- "here to help."
Not unlike a decade ago when Sandy Kress
rode into town on a white horse and con-
vinced Texans that accountability testing
director John Fitzpatrick tried to put on
things as he hustled me away from
Tuesday's meeting and down to the lobby.
The way he explained it, there's a
disconnect between what front office says
about students (would this be PEIMS?) and
reality; to paraphrase his comments, Bill
Gates and friends are -- as Ronald Reagan
said about the government -- "here to help."
Not unlike a decade ago when Sandy Kress
rode into town on a white horse and con-
vinced Texans that accountability testing
Former Roslyn supe Frank Tassone out!
By Peyton Wolcott
Thursday, February 4, 2010 / 8:11 a.m.
Thursday, February 4, 2010 / 8:11 a.m.
Already! Early release for good behavior! But is his
taxpayer-funded facelift (note snug jawline) still
intact? His til-death-us-do-part New York pension
is, thanks to superintendent lobbyists. Former
Roslyn resident Chip Osman weighs in on former
supe Tassone & Roslyn's $11.2 million scandal:
taxpayer-funded facelift (note snug jawline) still
intact? His til-death-us-do-part New York pension
is, thanks to superintendent lobbyists. Former
Roslyn resident Chip Osman weighs in on former
supe Tassone & Roslyn's $11.2 million scandal:
| "I was seething about this guy this morning on the train. We lived in the Roslyn school district in East Hills during his “reign”. It is just infuriating. To think that we worked as hard as we did to pay our school taxes so our kids could have a great education and find out that they were financing a construction business and taking the Concorde to the UK?!? We gave up things that we could have had to pay taxes and they took our kids money. They should all have to do extreme community service for the district like being a custodian for no pay! Letting this guy out with his $175,000 pension to boot is an insult to the area residents. We have since moved out and would never consider going back. It is important that every school district have both internal auditors working for the Board and external auditors do legitimate audits of the bookd and records. Do your due diligence every day. You never know who is smiling and doing a great job and robbing you blind behind our back. |
| The faces of Frank: Mug shot, 2006 trial, hospital bed, orange prison jumpsuit |
Good news, America ! Looks like the 49
states except Texas (even Alaska's DOE said
last month they're going to apply for the
second round) who blindly went along with
Messrs. Obama's and Duncan's Race to the
Top scheme are waking up.
The National Conference of State Legislators
(report here) and the National Association of
State Boards of Education now know that RTTT money comes with actual
strings including not the 85% they'd understood but 100% acceptance "word
for word" of whatever standards the feds finally come up with. Hahaha
Department or Arrrgghh, your call: How circular is this, the NASBE
meetings are funded by a $450,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation--the driving force behind RTTT, pole vaulters over all opposition.
states except Texas (even Alaska's DOE said
last month they're going to apply for the
second round) who blindly went along with
Messrs. Obama's and Duncan's Race to the
Top scheme are waking up.
The National Conference of State Legislators
(report here) and the National Association of
State Boards of Education now know that RTTT money comes with actual
strings including not the 85% they'd understood but 100% acceptance "word
for word" of whatever standards the feds finally come up with. Hahaha
Department or Arrrgghh, your call: How circular is this, the NASBE
meetings are funded by a $450,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation--the driving force behind RTTT, pole vaulters over all opposition.
| Edu-Cowboys-in-Chief |
Speaking of which, is there any edu-related group
in America the Gates haven't given money to?
There's the national PTA .... National Student
Clearinghouse .... La Raza (Melinda's NCLR
heart-to-heart here detailing the Gates' actual visit
to a Texas border colonia whose illegal immigrant
inhabitants complained to her about their kids' free
U.S. taxpayer- funded educations) .... Education
Writers of America (their VP is Gates' foundation's
in America the Gates haven't given money to?
There's the national PTA .... National Student
Clearinghouse .... La Raza (Melinda's NCLR
heart-to-heart here detailing the Gates' actual visit
to a Texas border colonia whose illegal immigrant
inhabitants complained to her about their kids' free
U.S. taxpayer- funded educations) .... Education
Writers of America (their VP is Gates' foundation's
| Bill & Melinda Gates |
senior policy officer) .... Nieman Foundation for Journalism
at Harvard .... plus billions more.
Let's end on a cheerful note, death and taxes: How serious
is the IRS about collecting their money? Here's their
purchase order for 60 Remington 12-gauge pump-action
shotguns. Must be preparing for next-gen Untouchables.
at Harvard .... plus billions more.
Let's end on a cheerful note, death and taxes: How serious
is the IRS about collecting their money? Here's their
purchase order for 60 Remington 12-gauge pump-action
shotguns. Must be preparing for next-gen Untouchables.
| Robert Stack as IRS agent Elliott Ness |
| (Posted Thursday, February 4, 2010) |
RACE TO THE TOP SHOULD BE
CALLED "RACE FOR CONTROL
OF THE NATIONAL DATABASE"
RATCLIFFE'S TIES TO
MICROSOFT - BILL & THOMAS
MENTION THAT
BILL PUSHED LAPTOPS
LOBBYISTS SHOULD NOT BE
ELECTED TO THE SBOE
THEIR COMMERCIAL
CALLED "RACE FOR CONTROL
OF THE NATIONAL DATABASE"
RATCLIFFE'S TIES TO
MICROSOFT - BILL & THOMAS
MENTION THAT
BILL PUSHED LAPTOPS
LOBBYISTS SHOULD NOT BE
ELECTED TO THE SBOE
THEIR COMMERCIAL
Shouldn't Race to the Top really be called "The
Race for Control of the Nation's Student Database"?
By Peyton Wolcott/ Thursday, February 4, 2010 / 8:56 p.m. - Updated Saturday, February 6, 2010 / 11:26 a.m.
Race for Control of the Nation's Student Database"?
By Peyton Wolcott/ Thursday, February 4, 2010 / 8:56 p.m. - Updated Saturday, February 6, 2010 / 11:26 a.m.
In the olden days, like most of America, I rested complacent in the assumption that everyone
involved in school reform was doing so out of the purity of their pea-pickin' little hearts.
involved in school reform was doing so out of the purity of their pea-pickin' little hearts.
| L to R: Microsoft's Bill Gates, long- time Texas Microsoft lobbyist Thomas Ratliff, film critic Roger Ebert |
Here it is, word for word, plus
a few questions from me,
Peyton, as you read along:
a few questions from me,
Peyton, as you read along:
Back then in those kinder gentler days I would have
thought, "Oh, my! What wonderful people Bill &
Melinda Gates are, and so generous! There can't
possibly be any connection between on the one hand
Bill's holding shares in Microsoft which is in the
business of gathering and assessing student and other
data and on the other his push for public school reform
via the Obama administration's Race to the Top
thought, "Oh, my! What wonderful people Bill &
Melinda Gates are, and so generous! There can't
possibly be any connection between on the one hand
Bill's holding shares in Microsoft which is in the
business of gathering and assessing student and other
data and on the other his push for public school reform
via the Obama administration's Race to the Top
| Bill & Melinda Gates (PHOTO--Kjetil Ree) |
Gates' presidential giving
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Two of the
world's wealthiest charitable
foundations are bankrolling a $60
million initiative aimed at making
education an issue in the 2008
presidential campaign.
Philanthropists Bill Gates and Eli
Broad are hoping their "Strong
American Schools" project will
goad the presidential candidates
into taking bold stands on educati
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Two of the
world's wealthiest charitable
foundations are bankrolling a $60
million initiative aimed at making
education an issue in the 2008
presidential campaign.
Philanthropists Bill Gates and Eli
Broad are hoping their "Strong
American Schools" project will
goad the presidential candidates
into taking bold stands on educati
About that closed door, any time public schoolchildren and public tax dollars are in play explored the public needs and deserves full
access. Further, as a general rule whenever we see a lot of dollars being thrown around and/or latched onto in public education it's
a good idea to follow the money: What does this person look to get out of their public ed involvement?
access. Further, as a general rule whenever we see a lot of dollars being thrown around and/or latched onto in public education it's
a good idea to follow the money: What does this person look to get out of their public ed involvement?
| Alan Bersin (L) , Michael Milken (PHOTOS--Getty, Globe and Mail) |
| Part of what is so disturbing about Milken's predatory move into education is that the popular press has hailed it as redemption for a man with a tainted history. In reality, Milken's predatory financial activities, which bilked the public of billions while making him a billionaire, are continuing in education. In his defense of privatization, Milken is suggesting that he is helping children, giving them opportunities within a corporate future where the competition will make it increasingly difficult for them to participate in the economy: Education must address individual needs. Rapid corporate evolution and frequent restructuring - including downsizing, rightsizing and outsourcing - mean an employee can no longer rely upon a "job for life." We believe that those who have the ability to learn and apply new skills are most likely to achieve career success and personal fulfillment. - Milken's "Knowledge Universe Vison Statement" Corporate culture claims to solve the problems of schooling by remaking the school in the image of the corporation. What Milken is not saying is that he himself is actively sponsoring and building that cutthroat future with no job security, low pay, and exploitative work conditions. What is in fact a hostile takeover of education as a vital public good is being sold to the public as philanthropy. |
Interesting reading re
Michael Milken & education:
DePaul University professor
Kenneth J. Saltman
Michael Milken & education:
DePaul University professor
Kenneth J. Saltman
Entire article here.
Political/idealogue agenda
In addition to the money angle and mundane day-to-day politics there's something
else to consider, the longitudinal ever-continuing march towards the progressive
socialist ideal that's gone on here for over a century with part of the game plan
being a concerted effort to dumb down our schools in order to produce
German-style a compliant easily led labor force.
Look around you, think about the people you know and are related to. Hard to
In addition to the money angle and mundane day-to-day politics there's something
else to consider, the longitudinal ever-continuing march towards the progressive
socialist ideal that's gone on here for over a century with part of the game plan
being a concerted effort to dumb down our schools in order to produce
German-style a compliant easily led labor force.
Look around you, think about the people you know and are related to. Hard to
| Oprah with Bill and Melinda Gates |
Ratliff’s Microsoft ties should be of
particular concern to voters because it is
Bill and Melinda Gates of Microsoft who
are behind the Race to the Top, an effort
by the federal government to take over the
public schools with national standards,
national tests, national curriculum, and a
national database. The national database is
where Microsoft could make a fortune. It
will be interesting to see who will win that
bid for the national database.
particular concern to voters because it is
Bill and Melinda Gates of Microsoft who
are behind the Race to the Top, an effort
by the federal government to take over the
public schools with national standards,
national tests, national curriculum, and a
national database. The national database is
where Microsoft could make a fortune. It
will be interesting to see who will win that
bid for the national database.
campaign which focuses on the gathering and assessment of student data! Nah, no connection
here, move along folks."
here, move along folks."
Connecting the Race to the
Top dots: national student
database ... Bill Gates ...
Microsoft Texas lobbyist
Thomas Ratliff ... and, of
course, film critic Roger Ebert
Top dots: national student
database ... Bill Gates ...
Microsoft Texas lobbyist
Thomas Ratliff ... and, of
course, film critic Roger Ebert
Developing . . . |
In fact was only thanks to a closed-door Bill
Gates-funded meeting last week in Austin of Texas'
Big Eight urban school districts in which they shared
student database information that I started paying
attention to the idea of a national student database --
along with its possible uses and misuses -- at all.
Gates-funded meeting last week in Austin of Texas'
Big Eight urban school districts in which they shared
student database information that I started paying
attention to the idea of a national student database --
along with its possible uses and misuses -- at all.
Obama-Gates-Oprah-Eli Broad, let's focus on a smaller scale,
what' let's see what we can uncover about the Gates and
Microsoft here in Texas the first place to look is at the Texas
Ethics Commission lobby lists.
Who are the RTTT/Gates/Microsoft players in
Texas? What are their motives, strategery?
what' let's see what we can uncover about the Gates and
Microsoft here in Texas the first place to look is at the Texas
Ethics Commission lobby lists.
Who are the RTTT/Gates/Microsoft players in
Texas? What are their motives, strategery?
find now much of the American ideal as a nation of self-employed shopkeepers and farmers, folks sufficiently able to think for
themselves that they can be their own bosses. Kids graduating from high school who can't tell you what eight times nine is without
a calculator and who have never studied Shakespeare or Marcus Aurelius or Milton are not in a position to start let alone
successfully run their own businesses. Talk now you hear is of a skilled American workforce -- people chained to a desk or an
assembly line doing mind-numbing work for other people.
Fertile as my imagination might be, I didn't make this up, folks.
Please take a moment to read former IBM & RJReynolds chair Lou Gerstner's prophetic op-ed (at right in the grey box) published
just over a year ago in the Wall Street journal where he's laid out the lead-up starting with his suggestion that Mr. Obama convene
the nation's governors and impose national standards on all of America's local public schools, both of which have already occurred.
From Lou Gerstner's mouth to God's ears, you might say. Mr. Gerstner also proposed in that same op-ed a consolidation of all
15,000 American local public school districts into one per states plus another twenty for the largest urbans. Imagine 70 Detroits.
themselves that they can be their own bosses. Kids graduating from high school who can't tell you what eight times nine is without
a calculator and who have never studied Shakespeare or Marcus Aurelius or Milton are not in a position to start let alone
successfully run their own businesses. Talk now you hear is of a skilled American workforce -- people chained to a desk or an
assembly line doing mind-numbing work for other people.
Fertile as my imagination might be, I didn't make this up, folks.
Please take a moment to read former IBM & RJReynolds chair Lou Gerstner's prophetic op-ed (at right in the grey box) published
just over a year ago in the Wall Street journal where he's laid out the lead-up starting with his suggestion that Mr. Obama convene
the nation's governors and impose national standards on all of America's local public schools, both of which have already occurred.
From Lou Gerstner's mouth to God's ears, you might say. Mr. Gerstner also proposed in that same op-ed a consolidation of all
15,000 American local public school districts into one per states plus another twenty for the largest urbans. Imagine 70 Detroits.
| U.S. DOE Secretary Arne Duncan & Eli Broad at Broad's inaugural party celebrating Mr. Obama's presidency. |
Did you have the same reaction I did
when junk bond king and convicted
felon (98 counts) Michael Milken's
post-prison foray into public education
was announced a decade ago, a reaction
along the lines of what did Mike know
that the rest of us didn't? At about that
same time Angeleno Alan Bersin made a
big career change from running a
lucrative Los Angeles law practice to
running a lucrative public school district
in San Diego. What did Alan know?
And there's the bigger question: Is all
so-called school reform only about
dollars or is there more at stake?
when junk bond king and convicted
felon (98 counts) Michael Milken's
post-prison foray into public education
was announced a decade ago, a reaction
along the lines of what did Mike know
that the rest of us didn't? At about that
same time Angeleno Alan Bersin made a
big career change from running a
lucrative Los Angeles law practice to
running a lucrative public school district
in San Diego. What did Alan know?
And there's the bigger question: Is all
so-called school reform only about
dollars or is there more at stake?
Along the way many of the old Republican/Democrat and liberal/conservative monikkers and
assumptions have fallen by the wayside along with outdated notions that big business and big
banks are run by conservative Republicans; for the first few examples that come to mind,
there's Lou Gerstner at IBM, most of Goldman Sachs and AIG's top-tier management, Eli Broad
(Sun Life & The Broad Foundation) -- you can go on and on, all of them donors to liberals and
liberal causes promoting big government out of which they have some reasonable expectation of
profiting.
So this makes the new big American internal debate look something like this: Big versus Little
as in big labor unions against little shopkeepers, big teachers unions against small taxpayers.
The individual versus the mammoth. Freedom and liberty versus slavery
assumptions have fallen by the wayside along with outdated notions that big business and big
banks are run by conservative Republicans; for the first few examples that come to mind,
there's Lou Gerstner at IBM, most of Goldman Sachs and AIG's top-tier management, Eli Broad
(Sun Life & The Broad Foundation) -- you can go on and on, all of them donors to liberals and
liberal causes promoting big government out of which they have some reasonable expectation of
profiting.
So this makes the new big American internal debate look something like this: Big versus Little
as in big labor unions against little shopkeepers, big teachers unions against small taxpayers.
The individual versus the mammoth. Freedom and liberty versus slavery
Developing . . . . |
