I had previously told you I was in favor of destroying the DOEd. You graciously replied.
I am just now looking at your 3/31 email (Transform K-12 Education Now).
I only skimmed it. It would be wonderful if things like you recommend could actually be implemented. I am overjoyed at what our President is already doing on MANY, MANY, issues and fronts. But what you recommend could only be done if someone who had the knowledge, background, and vision that you (and maybe a few others) have, was given authority to do it, on a clean slate. I wish it could be.
(I have a very jaundiced view of government, having retired from local government in a mid-size northern city. There is almost NOTHING government can, or will, do well. Only allow government do something if no one else can, or will, do it.)
Richard: Ty for the followup. We have a simple choice here: 1) be negative and assume the worst, or 2) be positive and optimistic. I do not see how negativity benefits us, so I believe in an eyes-wide-open positivity.
As I mentioned, I have done this. So why hasn’t it been done before?
No one except a rare individual with authority who has the courage would do it. You must have confidence in the input/output metrics and the system's comprehensive review with proper metrics to assess three years of performance.
Most government program reviews are rubber stamps. The reviewers are never asked to return to listen to improvement plans after the review and see how they were implemented.
If you think this is easy to do, I can testify that it isn’t. It’s a lot of work requiring tenacity and approval from above. There is also a lot of political spin to deal with, as you can see now, with the crazy and stupid people going after Musk.
Randy Weingarten would be following you with a mob everywhere, yelling at the top of their lungs!
Given administration changes, finding someone to do the job is daunting. They are as rare as hens’ teeth.
Most of this discussion is somewhat academic. The problem is designing a plan and finding someone willing and competent to implement it. You need someone with a lot of experience in government. They must understand the rules because lawyers rule what gets done in government.
In my experience, power is usually acquired by scoundrels. They have social skills and look for an opportunity to seize it in any way they can. They generally make zero or negative contributions to programs because they have no clue what is right or wrong for the country. They spend most of their time measuring the political wind to advance themselves.
Good people who speak their minds struggle to work and survive in the DC manure pit. You can get easily extinguished by a methane bubble bursting unexpectedly at the surface. People have ways of marginalizing those who have three-digit IQs and common sense.
Government has never been able to run anything. Imagining that the government would only give advice without pressure-money or other wise- is a big false dream. Amazingly before Carter tried to please the unions for votes the states and education was doing a good job. Once DOE was established everything went down.
Carolyn: For some reason you arbitrarily decided what can not be done. Many would have said that most of what Trump is now doing could NOT be done. Imagine a new federal agency aimed at reducing waste! IMPOSSIBLE!
I very much prefer the definition of a revised or replaced DoEd as a service organization, not a regulatory one.
Concerning current pedagogy failures read Lance Izumi's "Chaos in the Classroom" and "The Great Classroom Collapse."
Public-sector unions should be prohibited. FDR said they would result in two parties negotiating from the same side of the table against the absent taxpayer, and that has been the observed result. We got local public-sector unions from NYC Democrat Mayor Robert Wagner, then others followed suit, state ones from California Democrat Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, then others followed suit, and national ones from JFK executive order 10988 in 1962.
VS:Thank you for reconsidering. Yes, DOEd should be a SERVICE organization, not a regulatory one. If we apply some critical thinking, the benefits of doing this could be extraordinary — which is exactly what we need considering the horrific state our K-12 education system is in.
I really appreciate your suggestions in how to transform the DoEd. A smaller institution can do incredibly good work for education if it is based on the tenets of academic excellence. And that is just one area of many that has decayed over decades of funding bloat and hyper-focus on social justice which has lead to lackluster student performance. When I went back as an empty nester for my masters I was shocked at the changes at the university level both in courses and assessment. In my classes were working elementary and secondary education teachers also pursuing higher degrees and though they were subpar writers and speakers they were pushed through with flying colors.
Bonnie. Thank you. Your experience is yet another example of what happens when conservatives effectively abandon the K-12 curricula to the Left. They are astounded that people on the Right don't get how important it is to have the curricula correct. As Jordan said re K-12 education: "Republicans have been asleep at the switch for 40± years!" This is incomprerhensively stupid.
I am often reminded of the caring thoughts of John W. Gardner, who dedicated his life to public service, that capture the problem we have,
“We don’t even know what skills may be needed in the years ahead. That is why we must train our young people in the fundamental fields of knowledge, and equip them to understand and cope with change. That is why we must give them the critical qualities of mind and durable qualities of character that will serve them in circumstances we cannot now even predict.”
The issue is how to achieve this when schools are substantially dependent on local taxes, teachers are poorly trained, especially in STEM subjects, and our culture has dramatically changed over the last half-century to one that is risk-averse and avoids challenges and bold steps.
I do not see how one can change a system that is comfortable with what it does and receives funding to do just that. The standards for measuring teacher and student performance must change, and only those that measurably change should receive funding. Take from the defiant and give to the compliant. That will create competition for funding and, over time, transform the system from universities down to K.
John: My article recommends that DOEd reward (fund) States that do en exemplary job at creatively and competently improving their K-12 education product. Let them try to outdo each other in doing a better job. Wow, what a bad thing that woud be!
I did this in government for a mediocre Army research program. In three years, the quality of the proposals improved dramatically, as did the output. The key is making clear the metrics that will be used to decide on funding and the criteria used to judge the output.
Making clear that those who are compliant will be rewarded by taking from the defiant changes the game.
This approach is all you need, and it's simply stated, although carefully determining the input and output metrics is where the challenge is. People know how to game things. Critical thinking and gaming the system is critical.
Setting up a comprehensive three-year -old review with outside experts with no vested interest helps to keep people on their toes.
I think that you're barking up the wrong tree. 50 different states, all making different mistakes, would be much better than having one single overlord forcing EVERY mistake on all 50 state school systems. Mistakes are at least possible to address at the state level. Busting the iron rule of teacher unions at the state level is at least possible; at the federal level it isn't even mentionable and cannot be addressed.
I had previously told you I was in favor of destroying the DOEd. You graciously replied.
I am just now looking at your 3/31 email (Transform K-12 Education Now).
I only skimmed it. It would be wonderful if things like you recommend could actually be implemented. I am overjoyed at what our President is already doing on MANY, MANY, issues and fronts. But what you recommend could only be done if someone who had the knowledge, background, and vision that you (and maybe a few others) have, was given authority to do it, on a clean slate. I wish it could be.
(I have a very jaundiced view of government, having retired from local government in a mid-size northern city. There is almost NOTHING government can, or will, do well. Only allow government do something if no one else can, or will, do it.)
Richard: Ty for the followup. We have a simple choice here: 1) be negative and assume the worst, or 2) be positive and optimistic. I do not see how negativity benefits us, so I believe in an eyes-wide-open positivity.
As I mentioned, I have done this. So why hasn’t it been done before?
No one except a rare individual with authority who has the courage would do it. You must have confidence in the input/output metrics and the system's comprehensive review with proper metrics to assess three years of performance.
Most government program reviews are rubber stamps. The reviewers are never asked to return to listen to improvement plans after the review and see how they were implemented.
If you think this is easy to do, I can testify that it isn’t. It’s a lot of work requiring tenacity and approval from above. There is also a lot of political spin to deal with, as you can see now, with the crazy and stupid people going after Musk.
Randy Weingarten would be following you with a mob everywhere, yelling at the top of their lungs!
Given administration changes, finding someone to do the job is daunting. They are as rare as hens’ teeth.
Most of this discussion is somewhat academic. The problem is designing a plan and finding someone willing and competent to implement it. You need someone with a lot of experience in government. They must understand the rules because lawyers rule what gets done in government.
John: Yes, bad actors are never happy with doing what's in the best interest of the country. We should not allow them to bully us.
In my experience, power is usually acquired by scoundrels. They have social skills and look for an opportunity to seize it in any way they can. They generally make zero or negative contributions to programs because they have no clue what is right or wrong for the country. They spend most of their time measuring the political wind to advance themselves.
Good people who speak their minds struggle to work and survive in the DC manure pit. You can get easily extinguished by a methane bubble bursting unexpectedly at the surface. People have ways of marginalizing those who have three-digit IQs and common sense.
John: Agreed, but again, we can not allow the country to suffer further, and good people to be marginalized, by evil and incompetent bullies.
Government has never been able to run anything. Imagining that the government would only give advice without pressure-money or other wise- is a big false dream. Amazingly before Carter tried to please the unions for votes the states and education was doing a good job. Once DOE was established everything went down.
Carolyn: For some reason you arbitrarily decided what can not be done. Many would have said that most of what Trump is now doing could NOT be done. Imagine a new federal agency aimed at reducing waste! IMPOSSIBLE!
I very much prefer the definition of a revised or replaced DoEd as a service organization, not a regulatory one.
Concerning current pedagogy failures read Lance Izumi's "Chaos in the Classroom" and "The Great Classroom Collapse."
Public-sector unions should be prohibited. FDR said they would result in two parties negotiating from the same side of the table against the absent taxpayer, and that has been the observed result. We got local public-sector unions from NYC Democrat Mayor Robert Wagner, then others followed suit, state ones from California Democrat Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, then others followed suit, and national ones from JFK executive order 10988 in 1962.
VS:Thank you for reconsidering. Yes, DOEd should be a SERVICE organization, not a regulatory one. If we apply some critical thinking, the benefits of doing this could be extraordinary — which is exactly what we need considering the horrific state our K-12 education system is in.
I really appreciate your suggestions in how to transform the DoEd. A smaller institution can do incredibly good work for education if it is based on the tenets of academic excellence. And that is just one area of many that has decayed over decades of funding bloat and hyper-focus on social justice which has lead to lackluster student performance. When I went back as an empty nester for my masters I was shocked at the changes at the university level both in courses and assessment. In my classes were working elementary and secondary education teachers also pursuing higher degrees and though they were subpar writers and speakers they were pushed through with flying colors.
Bonnie. Thank you. Your experience is yet another example of what happens when conservatives effectively abandon the K-12 curricula to the Left. They are astounded that people on the Right don't get how important it is to have the curricula correct. As Jordan said re K-12 education: "Republicans have been asleep at the switch for 40± years!" This is incomprerhensively stupid.
Eliminate Common Core. Test scores took a nose dive when that was implemented, and parents couldn't even help their kids with math homework anymore.
SM: That's what I was trying to say.
Get rid of the NEA hymarkacademy.us
Dave: Yes. john
I am often reminded of the caring thoughts of John W. Gardner, who dedicated his life to public service, that capture the problem we have,
“We don’t even know what skills may be needed in the years ahead. That is why we must train our young people in the fundamental fields of knowledge, and equip them to understand and cope with change. That is why we must give them the critical qualities of mind and durable qualities of character that will serve them in circumstances we cannot now even predict.”
The issue is how to achieve this when schools are substantially dependent on local taxes, teachers are poorly trained, especially in STEM subjects, and our culture has dramatically changed over the last half-century to one that is risk-averse and avoids challenges and bold steps.
I do not see how one can change a system that is comfortable with what it does and receives funding to do just that. The standards for measuring teacher and student performance must change, and only those that measurably change should receive funding. Take from the defiant and give to the compliant. That will create competition for funding and, over time, transform the system from universities down to K.
John:
That is why teaching students to be Critical Thinkers needs to be a top priority.
john
If you do not change what you fund, change will not happen.
John: My article recommends that DOEd reward (fund) States that do en exemplary job at creatively and competently improving their K-12 education product. Let them try to outdo each other in doing a better job. Wow, what a bad thing that woud be!
I did this in government for a mediocre Army research program. In three years, the quality of the proposals improved dramatically, as did the output. The key is making clear the metrics that will be used to decide on funding and the criteria used to judge the output.
Making clear that those who are compliant will be rewarded by taking from the defiant changes the game.
This approach is all you need, and it's simply stated, although carefully determining the input and output metrics is where the challenge is. People know how to game things. Critical thinking and gaming the system is critical.
Setting up a comprehensive three-year -old review with outside experts with no vested interest helps to keep people on their toes.
I can testify that this approach works!
John: TY for the affirmation. CLEARLY what I'm proposing has extraordinary upsides, with trivial risks (if done right).
I think that you're barking up the wrong tree. 50 different states, all making different mistakes, would be much better than having one single overlord forcing EVERY mistake on all 50 state school systems. Mistakes are at least possible to address at the state level. Busting the iron rule of teacher unions at the state level is at least possible; at the federal level it isn't even mentionable and cannot be addressed.
Ed: You are creating a strawman argument. For example,I said nothing about DOEd "forcing" anyone. Please read what I wrote.