America Needs Education Academy (Final Edit)

     For the past 50 years, Americans have pursued quality education--especially in mathematics and the sciences--for all American children.  Many attempts have been made by some very smart people--and with considerable success.  But while these programs were often successful, the courses often were too difficult for the teachers assigned to teach them.  

     Most of those who developed these courses were either scientists, mathematicians, or university professors.  This was good.  But the efforts were wasted because little attempt was made to recruit teachers, who not only were familiar with and masters of the content, but knew how to teach that content in a manner that allows all student to succeed.  That means enabling students to master content at levels commensurate with their abilities, interest and willingness to devote reasonable time maximizing their learning. 

      Maximizing the learning of every child is the responsibility of every school, teacher, principal and superintendent.  But the job of differentiating instruction in manners that allow students to learn a their rates is not easy.  And because there are too few strategies for doing so that are known to teachers, use of the strategy should not be limited to teachers who take it upon themselves either to develop  strategies that works for them, or use strategies developed by other teachers.

     So let's assume that effective teaching strategies are possible--or better still, exist--which would enable schools to succeed with all children.  How would these strategies be placed in the hands and heads of teachers?  It is a disgrace that in fifty years we still don't have such strategies available.  Is it that teachers who have mastered the strategy of differentiating instruction are compensated too well by becoming consultants?  Or do they earn more attractive salaries by going to school districts--or even colleges and universities--which reward them handsomely for their knowledge?  For some reasons, differentiating instruction is not making it to our many failing schools.  

     Chicago is in the process of closing failing schools.  Parents, students, teacher unions and community leaders are concerned but unsure about the reasons.  Are the concerned about the closing of schools or about the reasons why the schools are being closed?  

     Suggestions are being made that schools are being closed because they are in minority neighborhoods, that somebody does not want minority children to receive an education.   Others suggest that these schools are being closed because of poor academic performances by the students, that the students are being transferred to schools where students are performing well and, hopefully, that students from closed schools might be able do the same.  Some parents believe other schools do better because they have better teachers and resources.  It  appears, though, that strategies that make one district or city school successful  are not shared with other teachers and schools throughout the schools and school systems.  

     Are good teachers reluctant to share good ideas with other teachers?

And are successful teachers justified in that reluctance?  Maybe they are more successful because they have joined more professional organizations, read more professional literature, attended more challenging colleges and universities, continued their college or university training at night or during summers, worked longer hour preparing to be successful and other things to extend their knowledge and teaching skills.  Whatever motivates or equips some teachers to perform better than other teachers should be made available to all teacher.  But how?  

     Adding to the confusion is the fact that there are differences both among students and among educators concerning their abilities to learn; their motivations, interests, backgrounds, ethnicities, colleagues and peers; and concern for students.  Teachers have preferred teaching styles, and students have preferred learning styles.  There are many successful teaching styles and strategies.  The problem is matching teaching and learning styles.  

     Such matches of optimum teaching and learning styles are less likely to be found--or even pursued--in low priority schools.  Identifying teachers instructional needs and students learning needs are time-consuming responsibilities, and are usually beyond both the interest of school boards and the expertise of school administrations.  And both fail to fulfill these responsibilities because school patrons don't know what to expect of either of them.  

     But there is a solution:  America has trained young people to become the best military in the world.  She has landed men on the moon and safely return them to Earth.  That America also can fix her schools.   But how?  

     Just as the government has military academies to train its military leaders, it needs an Education Academy to train educational leaders who can head state departments of education--for states that want them--and provide leadership for and communicate academic and administrative expectations to local school districts.  These educators will have explored all factors that contribute to success in schools serving all kinds and combinations of children.  

     The academy would also develop national curricula--again, for states choosing to use them.  It would train instructors for positions at teacher-training college and universities, teaching them to differentiate instruction (mastery teach) for all students commensurate with students abilities and willingness to learn.  Academy students would graduate within in six-eight years with a cross-discipline PhD.   The goal always would be to produce, through research and experimentation with different kinds of students and diverse circumstances, educators who are much better teachers than their own academy professors.   

     Many believe that education is as important as the military to the future security of America.  If that true, then let's turn our best minds loose in solving the nation's education problems, and spread educational expertise throughout the country.

Ronald

EMail: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Gradual Routes to Compromise (Edited)

      President Obama needs a comprehensive plan for the economic future of America, including a strategy that achieves a $5-6 trillion debt-reduction package over the next 10 years.  

    The most likely way to achieve that goal and greater confidence might be to set goals that are phased in over a 10-year period.  A phased approach allows everyone who will be impacted to adjust their life styles and budgets to accommodate the changes.  If an effective debt-reduction plan must require sacrifices by everybody, appropriate levels of change and phase-in periods will be necessary.

     Justifications for entitlement revision have not changed over the years: People who have acquired certain level of wealth should have their Social Security and Medicare benefits reduced to reflect that wealth.  Social Security and Medicare are safety-nets designed to serve those who for various reasons may needs for such financial assistance.  They are like buying home, auto, sick and accident, and term-life insurance to protect against occurrences which encumber expenses that the insured might not otherwise be able to afford.

     But if the house is not damaged by fire or wind, if the car is not severely damaged, and if the insured does not get sick or die within the insured period, the insured does not expect to get any money.  Protection was bought.  Economic sanity demands that--at least for the foreseeable future--the same apply to Social Security and Medicare.  Warren Buffet does not need Social Security and Medicare coverage--at this time.  

     And just as people who buy various other types of insurance make every attempt not to receive benefits, the goal of every employee should be to never need Social Security and Medicare.  Just as people are happy when they don't have benefit from the various forms of insurance they have purchased, those who paid into SS and MC should be glad when their wealth makes such benefits unnecessary.

      Social Security and Medicare could be phased out according to such income-benefit schedule as the following:  Income, $50,000--benefits, 100%,  $60,000-96%,  $70,000-92%…….$280,000-4%,  $300,000-0.  Each benefit-income level might be phased in over five years.  Beyond $300,000 of income, people who are 65 years of age will have earned enough--and accumulated sufficient wealth--to insure themselves.    Medicare would still cover catastrophic illnesses. 

     The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would end on December 31, 2012.  Those for the middle class and working poor would be phased out over a 5-10 year period.    After ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,  gradually increase their maximum tax rates to the Clinton rate of 39% over the next ten years.  The Wealthy will have less money to invest, but the middle class will make up the difference by having more of it to invest. 

     Wealthy Americans obviously are in better financial condition to adjust to the changes in taxation than are the middle class and working poor;  hence, there would need to be a phase-in period.  Americans at all income levels would have the remainder of 2012 to begin anticipating--and hopefully making--any adjustments to their budgets that will make the transitions painless or less painful.    

     The contributions of business to the economic recovery is indispensable and must be present with the same vigor that they give to the success of their company.  They have a crucial role to play in providing employment opportunities, but they have perhaps greater responsibility to help better educate America's children so they can qualify for the kinds of jobs businesses say they need. 

     The contributions of business to the recovery of the American economy is indispensable.  Businesses  provide employment opportunities.  But they also should help address the problem of better educating American children so they can qualify for the kinds of jobs businesses say they have.  Businesses must indicate not only the areas of need but the number of openings available.  Then, they must hire and, along with governmental assistance, finance the education that qualifies local students for these positions.  

     Students will not pursue skilled areas if they don't have confidence that there will be job when they become certified.  Therefore, businesses should target interested and qualified students in the eighth grade from which some determined number of students will selected for apprenticeships and employment.   Financial aid would be for students who would not otherwise be financially able to receive such education.  Announcements of such opportunities in the early years would be motivational for all students to perform better--even those not eventually selected.

     If unions and workers are serious about jobs and job security, there would be agreements among union workers to share hours in economic down turns.  No workers should be laid off.  Hours would be shared, allowing worker skill-levels to be retained.  The degree of sharing would depend on business needs to cut back on hours worked.  Workers would save during good times to make up for lost income when they must share hours. 

     All wages and salaries would be tied to the salaries of the CEO of the business, with a fixed rate.  The importance of CEOs relative to that of other executives and workers remains essentially the same: More proficient CEOs produce more proficient employees.

     Finally, there may also be needs to phase pensions out for the wealthy and phase them down for the middle class.  It would be better, especially for the working poor and middle class, to eliminate even the possibility of having to cut salaries, benefits and services by 25% or more all at once as is now the case with Greece.  Where appropriate, benefits would be phased back as dictated by economic conditions and outlook.

     These ideas need be discussed on c-span by a committee from businesses, unions, education, legislatures; all races, all political and religious persuasions: include Allan Simpson and Erskine Bowles; and be chaired by President Obama.  

     Americans and peoples of the world should be able to see an example of how economic and social problems can be resolved--and perhaps, in the future, prevented.

On Doing the Right Things

February 13, 2012

To:  The Editor

     President Obama has extended his religious compromise in order to accommodate those in the Catholic church who feel, much as do fellow Republicans, that, because of their principles, they cannot compromise with Democrats.  These leaders of the Catholic faith feel, similarly, that they should not compromise with the President because of their consciences.  And I agree with sticking with one principles and the dictates of one's conscience.  

     But when principles of people who must work together clash, what's to be done?  You compromise.  One principle cannot be consider superior to another:  Neither church nor state trumps the other.

     The fact that the Catholic faith believes that contraction is wrong does not give it the right to impede those benefits to those who might not believe that.  If those who are using contraceptive means are committing sinful acts and choose to do so, that's  between them and God.   The fact that the Catholic church opposes the use of contraceptions does not justify obstructing contraceptive use by employees who either don't share that belief, or who, while sharing that belief, encounter circumstances which dictate that they act contrary to those beliefs.

     When Catholic institutions, like many other employers, pay for their employees insurance, they pay for insurance in lieu of paying employees higher wages which would enable employees to buy their own insurance.  Catholic institutions, therefore, have no more right to restrict the insurance coverages of contraceptive services when they pay insurance premiums than they would have it they paid employees enough to buy their own insurance.

     The Catholic institutions owe President Obama and all of the policy holders of the insurance who must have their premiums increased to pay for contraceptive services that the Catholic church institutions refuse to cover.  The Church in effect passes over to other policy holders the responsibilities of paying for services which the church believes to be sinful. 

     Which, therefore, should give in when the expectations of the Catholic church conflicts with what its members rights are determined to be under the Constitution?  It is my opinion that the Catholic church has no authority over how the government will operate, except for the right of its members to determine at the ballot boxes who and what will constitute that government.  Only the Constitution and laws passed by the Congress should control the government--not politicians of the Catholic faith.  

     The government, on the other hand, does have authority to impose laws that impact what the Catholic church and its members can and cannot do related to matters outside of the authority and teachings of the church.  The church can teach what it believes to be the will of God.  But it cannot control the behavior of individuals, be they Catholics or non-Catholics, just because what those individuals do conflicts with the consciences of church leaders or some of its members in politics.

     If there is a conflict between the teachings of the church and rights of its members under the federal law, the people rights under the law take precedence--on earth.  Teachers of religious doctrine will have fulfilled their calling when they teach what the behaviors of the followers should be.

     One of the church bishops says that  the President's policy change is "a good first step."  I say it was  one step too far because if a Catholic institution has the right  to deny employees insurance coverage for contraceptive services, they can fire employees who have the services performed regardless of what insurance pays for it. 

     The President has said in the past something to the effect that it is better to do "the right thing" than be reelected by not doing it.  Of course, its easier to say that when election time is not imminent.  The "right thing" was what he decided before he changed his mind.  If that's not satisfactory to Catholic voters and Catholic leaders, and they believe a bette American rest with Republican, let them vote Republican.

     If President Obama's latest concession to the Catholic church was "a good first step,"  The "right thing" would be for Catholic institutions is to take the second good step of increasing wages of employees by an amount that enables them to buy their own  insurance.   The church need not even know which insurance they bought. 

     Certainly the Catholic church and its institutions would not want other policy holders to pay the cost of  insuring their employees.

     And further exploring this matter of the President's changing his mind and doing the "right thing" with respect to Catholic institutions and contraceptions, he should change his mind about establishing  super PACs for receiving hidden campaign contributions from corporations and do the "right thing" by giving the people a chance to vote against there being too much money in politics, especially secret corporate money.  

     While it is understandable that the President would want to "play on a level playing field by the rules of the game and be temped to "fight fire with fire," this may be one of those times when "how you play the game" again is allowed to matter, and fire will be fought--with water.

     If November's elections will indeed be battles for the "soul of America," Americans with genuine religious faith already know which side they're on.

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Rendering unto Caesar (Edited)

     Concerning the desire of certain Catholic institutions for further exemptions from the new health-care law, the following are ideas that provide other perspectives on this latest controversy. 

     First, having a religious institution send its employees to another insurance company that will pay for contraceptive services at a non-catholic hospital would cause another hospital to do what the Catholic church believe is wrong.  If it is wrong for Catholics, it is wrong for non-Catholics, whether or not these non-Catholics believe it.  Both Catholics and non-Catholics serve and expect to be judged by the same God.

     The conflict might be somewhat analogous to a person thinking that he (or she) has reason to murder someone.  But believing it would be wrong to do so, hires or encourages someone else to do it.  Wouldn't the first person still be wrong for making arrangements for someone else to do something that he (or she) believed to be wrong?

    Catholic universities and hospitals should not encourage non-Catholics to do something they themselves believe is sinful.  And that being the case, the Hawaii plan would not be the answer for Hawaiians either.

    Paying for employee insurance that covers contraceptive services is not the same a performing or condoning whatever contraceptive services may be performed.  Catholic hospitals and universities can pay for the insurance of non-Catholic employees, even as they recommend against their use of the service, but recognize the employee's rights under existing law--a sort of "rendering unto Caesar."

    Also, Catholic universities and hospitals don't generally teach their employees about Catholic dogma or religious doctrine, primarily (I guess) because many of their employees are non-Catholic.  The Catholic Church does the teaching.  So this conflict between conscience and deed, and between whatever minimal Catholic religious teaching these institutions may provide and the contraceptive services the insurance will buy seem not to warrant further exceptions to the health-care law.

    The exemption of the Catholic church and any other Catholic institution which hires and insures only member of the Catholic faith makes sense.  The employees who follow the church's teachings won't want need contraceptive services.  

     But what about those who would?  Again, it would be wrong to help Catholic  members to find other sources of insurance that would cover services which the Catholic church believes is unforgivably sinful.

     Some "wrongs" may be appropriate if they achieve a greater good.   Many people must work on the Sabbath in order to keep their jobs.  Even many religious institutions hire--and require--workers both of the faith and not of the faith to do various kinds of work on the Sabbath.  Many people of faith go to war and kill other people who also would rather not being there, but are there either because they are forced to be there or in order to achieve a greater good.

     A religious institution's buying employee insurance which also permits contraceptive services also achieves a greater good by providing services to both Catholic and non-Catholic employees who much more often than not have medical needs unrelated to contraceptions.

      To the extent that doing something that may be "wrong," It, too,may be "forgivable" when the action achieves a greater good, and President Obama made the right decision.  For the President to have ruled otherwise would mean that all Catholic institutions might have to be exempted from all aspects of the law dealing with insuring contraceptive services.  That would be unfair to Catholic patrons who might want and need the services, and it would open the door to all kinds of requests by others for exemptions, even those unrelated to religion and contraception.

     As for the politics of the matter, the Catholic church--and Catholics members and organizations--must decide whether it wants to be responsible for the failure of Obamacare, and by doing so deny Americans who need universal health care and the benefits the law provides.  The disagreement, therefore, does not seem to warrant those of the Catholic faith who otherwise support his agenda abandoning President Obama in his reelection bid.  The President made the best decision possible, given the circumstances.  He just finds himself in a position of being "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

     Which leads one to wonder, what decision a white Republican president of the Catholic faith would have made concerning this matter, and how the Catholic community would have reacted to that decision.  I have concluded that both the decision and the reactions would have been the same.