Nearly a decade since President Bush signed No Child Left Behind into law, President Obama is now taking steps to dismantle its most ineffective stipulations. The new terms set by the President acknowledge the variable conditions and circumstances in school districts nationwide. States can now apply for a waiver and set their own standards of achievement. These changes will make our education system more efficient, relieving districts and teachers of monolithic standardized tests and counterproductive "failing" labels.
Two weeks ago, I proposed that we reinvigorate the nation by setting a goal. With this in mind, we can look to No Child Left Behind as a useful case of a failed national goal. Much blame for the law's ineffectiveness has been placed on its framework as a goal: that 100% of students reach grade-level proficiency in reading and math by 2014. Critics of the law say that this was, and always will be, impossible.
I don't need to explain why these critics are 100% right, nor will I waste space ranting about how 100% of anything misses the point completely.
Rather, I'll point out one facet of this debacle that could be easily twisted to set us back another ten years. We didn't achieve the goal of No Child Left Behind, and this was a lofty goal indeed. But our inevitable failure cannot be a referendum on lofty goals. It's not simply that we set a goal too big, too much, too ambitious. Because as we well know, it was also silly and irrelevant.
We can learn from No Child Left Behind not to stake our national dignity on ending 100% of civilian casualties or picking up all of the cigarette butts. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to demonize fast food to oblivion or use public resources to modernize public schools, as President Obama declares in his address. We can still clean up the streets and the ocean. These are goals that we can achieve, that are, by definition, attainable. And not only are they attainable, they are bigger and better than anything No Child Left Behind had to offer.
We can learn from one of the simplest, most accessible economic theories, the law of diminishing returns, that if we spend to the moon, there will remain middle school dropouts. Thankfully, President Obama is not wasting our time by complaining about the failures of No Child Left Behind, but rather proposing new goals that can bring us to a smarter, successful future. Now, with proper doses of federal spending, state sovereignty, and some confidence in our abilities, we can finally lift our children from the middle of the pack among nations. That is an attainable goal.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
2011.09.17 Weekly Address: Passing the American Jobs Act
Republicans have cried foul as President Obama demands immediate passage of the American Jobs Act. It's not fair, they say, that the President would expect us to pass his bill without letting us contribute our ideas. They cite the need for compromise and discourse.
Before dismissing Republican opposition as obstructionist and crotchety, let's allow for the possibility that their grievances are earnest. The President needs some Republican votes, and these are within reach, provided that the GOP feel welcome to a spot at the table. If all they want is to make a few changes, even if only to appear engaged and influential, President Obama should allow them this opportunity. He hasn't much to lose, and this would be a small price to pay.
The President is taking a hard line in order to appear strong, as many worry about his chances in the 2012 election. This is a fair concern. But he would also appear strong, perhaps even more so, if he doesn't insist on passage exactly as written. Let them make a few changes if it's going to calm them down. Remember, this whole enterprise is mostly about injured pride and saving face.
Be strong, President Obama, and hold fast to your principles. But don't draw a line in the sand now. You are better than that, and your American Jobs Act is too good to waste.
It will be best not to invite comparison to Rep. Paul Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee who drafted this summer's Republican budget plan. The Ryan Plan, doomed to a presidential veto from its inception, was a futile exercise in bluster and a legislative failure that further undermined GOP credibility. Everyone knew from the get-go that it would never pass, but this didn't stop Republicans from bludgeoning the discourse with its irrelevant dogma.
Unlike the Ryan Plan, the American Jobs act is a centrist piece of legislation based on compromise. House Speaker John Boehner has announced that the plan "merits consideration." I hope the President will not waste this opportunity for real compromise by insisting on verbatim passage, which is about the only way the American Jobs Act could come across as unreasonable.
Before dismissing Republican opposition as obstructionist and crotchety, let's allow for the possibility that their grievances are earnest. The President needs some Republican votes, and these are within reach, provided that the GOP feel welcome to a spot at the table. If all they want is to make a few changes, even if only to appear engaged and influential, President Obama should allow them this opportunity. He hasn't much to lose, and this would be a small price to pay.
The President is taking a hard line in order to appear strong, as many worry about his chances in the 2012 election. This is a fair concern. But he would also appear strong, perhaps even more so, if he doesn't insist on passage exactly as written. Let them make a few changes if it's going to calm them down. Remember, this whole enterprise is mostly about injured pride and saving face.
Be strong, President Obama, and hold fast to your principles. But don't draw a line in the sand now. You are better than that, and your American Jobs Act is too good to waste.
It will be best not to invite comparison to Rep. Paul Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee who drafted this summer's Republican budget plan. The Ryan Plan, doomed to a presidential veto from its inception, was a futile exercise in bluster and a legislative failure that further undermined GOP credibility. Everyone knew from the get-go that it would never pass, but this didn't stop Republicans from bludgeoning the discourse with its irrelevant dogma.
Unlike the Ryan Plan, the American Jobs act is a centrist piece of legislation based on compromise. House Speaker John Boehner has announced that the plan "merits consideration." I hope the President will not waste this opportunity for real compromise by insisting on verbatim passage, which is about the only way the American Jobs Act could come across as unreasonable.
Monday, September 12, 2011
2011.09.10 Weekly Address: Coming Together as One Nation to Remember
As many have noted over the past few days, including President Obama in his weekly address, September 11, 2001 and the weeks following were a time of remarkable political and national unity. In the face of a direct threat to our safety
and security at the hands of a vicious, irrational enemy, America put politics
aside. They did not seem important;
too much was at stake.
Ten years on, while the threat of terrorist attacks persists, our leadership, media, and conversation
focus on a different sort of peril: our decline as a world leader and economic
power. This unpleasant possibility threatens
any sort of security we might hope to enjoy in the future, and we cannot escape the evidence. Millions of unemployed Americans know that the current economic recovery has been
perfunctory and inadequate. Our education system, compared to other developed countries, produces mediocrity. The obesity epidemic ravages the poor and disenfranchised. Amidst these immense challenges, the tone of political discourse is not only hostile, but fatalistic and dejected.
Whereas September 11 galvanized our patriotism and inspired heroic deeds, albeit temporarily, the economic crisis has done the opposite. We are a nation fragmented and misguided, unsure of how to tackle the 21st century and frustrated by our ineptitude. Our politics are pointlessly contentious. How can we emerge triumphant and proud in this era?
This is one of the great mysteries of our time, but I will hazard a guess. If we are to become functional and productive once again, we need to find a common national goal.
Our goal needs to meet a few criteria. To avoid political stalemate, it must be a goal that can be achieved by only one particular means. For example, when President Kennedy captured the nation's imagination by proposing a race to the moon, there was no question that Congress would need to allocate funding to NASA, which would in turn build a top-notch rocket. This was really the only possible way to have a race to the moon.
Our goal also needs to be one that no political party and few individuals would dare to question. During World War II, the civilian workforce rallied against a set of heinous enemies, inspired by a wholesome narrative of military heroism and righteousness. But in the 21st century, videos of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners of war complicated our understanding of military engagement, and so the War on Terror did not unify the nation for long.
While we need to reduce the deficit (to some degree) and create jobs, these will not suffice as our national goals. There is simply too much to argue about. These are necessary tasks, but we need an additional goal that will serve the purpose of uniting us.
So what can President Obama do? There is surely more than one answer, and possibly the most effective tack would be one that none of us have yet imagined, just as President Kennedy inspired his countrymen in 1961.
Alternatively, the President could choose a less fanciful, but eminently achievable and profoundly practical goal. What if, by the end of this decade, American students achieved the highest test scores in reading, science, and math in the world? Unlike President Bush's controversial No Child Left Behind Act, such a goal would hold America to an international standard administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). No longer would individual state programs have the option of achieving goals by lowering expectations. The OECD, a venerated entity that functions above the fray of American politics, already collects the necessary data. All we need to do is move up the charts.
Whereas September 11 galvanized our patriotism and inspired heroic deeds, albeit temporarily, the economic crisis has done the opposite. We are a nation fragmented and misguided, unsure of how to tackle the 21st century and frustrated by our ineptitude. Our politics are pointlessly contentious. How can we emerge triumphant and proud in this era?
This is one of the great mysteries of our time, but I will hazard a guess. If we are to become functional and productive once again, we need to find a common national goal.
Our goal needs to meet a few criteria. To avoid political stalemate, it must be a goal that can be achieved by only one particular means. For example, when President Kennedy captured the nation's imagination by proposing a race to the moon, there was no question that Congress would need to allocate funding to NASA, which would in turn build a top-notch rocket. This was really the only possible way to have a race to the moon.
Our goal also needs to be one that no political party and few individuals would dare to question. During World War II, the civilian workforce rallied against a set of heinous enemies, inspired by a wholesome narrative of military heroism and righteousness. But in the 21st century, videos of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners of war complicated our understanding of military engagement, and so the War on Terror did not unify the nation for long.
While we need to reduce the deficit (to some degree) and create jobs, these will not suffice as our national goals. There is simply too much to argue about. These are necessary tasks, but we need an additional goal that will serve the purpose of uniting us.
So what can President Obama do? There is surely more than one answer, and possibly the most effective tack would be one that none of us have yet imagined, just as President Kennedy inspired his countrymen in 1961.
Alternatively, the President could choose a less fanciful, but eminently achievable and profoundly practical goal. What if, by the end of this decade, American students achieved the highest test scores in reading, science, and math in the world? Unlike President Bush's controversial No Child Left Behind Act, such a goal would hold America to an international standard administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). No longer would individual state programs have the option of achieving goals by lowering expectations. The OECD, a venerated entity that functions above the fray of American politics, already collects the necessary data. All we need to do is move up the charts.
This goal, both as a process and an accomplishment, would restore American dignity and pride in a world that thinks we're stupid. It would stimulate the economy by increasing the productivity of our labor force. And I believe that parents across the political spectrum would embrace the project. Who doesn't want their children to be the smartest in the world?
President Obama needs to find a goal, immediately, that will unify his 300 million constituents. Some might say that this is impossible in the 21st century; indeed, never has such unity been sustained in our age. If this is true, if today's world is hopelessly fragmented, the President will be replaced in the next election. In order to keep his job, President Obama needs to debunk this grim notion and inspire his country to achieve greatness once again.
Monday, September 5, 2011
2011.09.03 Weekly Address: Time to Act on the Transportation Bill
This past weekend, my girlfriend, Sato, and I were rescued.
We were sailing on a 1970s-era Minifish boat at the time. We quickly capsized - Sato's grandpa had mentioned that this might happen, and we had a plan of action. We were drenched, but hardly dispirited.
But when we mounted the vessel, the rudder flopped ominously to the side. A bolt had come loose and popped off amidst the fray. In one critical moment, our steering apparatus had become a useless burden.
I can't say for sure how much time passed before the fireboat arrived. We tried to kick the boat towards shore. We tried the "human rudder" technique. All the while, as the tide moved seaward, we drifted helplessly on towards the horizon.
When the fireboat arrived and hoisted us to safety, we thanked our saviors profusely. They were a goodhearted bunch, mostly amused by our predicament. We motored to shore, and I asked one of the crew how much the rescue operation was going to cost me.
He explained that, in fact, the rescue was a free service. It is what the fire department does.
In our society, endangered citizens do not hesitate to call 911. Imagine if the police sent someone a bill after investigating an armed robbery or sexual assault. In America, we can do better than that. As such, even though Sato and I faced a danger rather mundane, something more like an embarrassing inconvenience, we were rescued for free.
Unfortunately, this logic does not hold true in so many regards. We can afford to save poor people from burning buildings, but they will need to choose between electricity and insulin. Or maybe they won't be able to afford either.
This double standard illuminates the basic incoherence of modern budget hawkery. There are certain rights (and, granted, a large region of gray area) required by every citizen. This is why we don't privatize the police. And, when the time comes to consider our budget priorities, these basic rights should not be used as bargaining chips; they should not be on the table.
President Obama, in this week's address, asks Congress to renew a transportation bill so that roads, bridges, and highways can be repaired and maintained. This is a responsibility that Congress needs to bankroll with federal dollars, regardless of our fiscal dilemma. It will be a sound investment in terms of job growth, efficiency, and quality of life. But just as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor questions whether government can afford to provide emergency assistance to Irene victims, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have made a habit of disregarding these basic rights in what the President labels "political gamesmanship."
We will see in the weeks to come whether the transportation bill will precipitate another rancorous stalemate or, at long last, bipartisan compromise. The President is worried, which is understandable, following the summer-long debt ceiling theatrics. But I would rather wait for Republicans to flesh out a coherent response before invoking panic and dire warnings. Best not to cry wolf. And it would seem that if Congress can agree on anything, filling potholes would be a good place to start.
I say, let's hope Washington puts pavement before politics, and enjoy the free roads while we've got them.
We were sailing on a 1970s-era Minifish boat at the time. We quickly capsized - Sato's grandpa had mentioned that this might happen, and we had a plan of action. We were drenched, but hardly dispirited.
But when we mounted the vessel, the rudder flopped ominously to the side. A bolt had come loose and popped off amidst the fray. In one critical moment, our steering apparatus had become a useless burden.
I can't say for sure how much time passed before the fireboat arrived. We tried to kick the boat towards shore. We tried the "human rudder" technique. All the while, as the tide moved seaward, we drifted helplessly on towards the horizon.
When the fireboat arrived and hoisted us to safety, we thanked our saviors profusely. They were a goodhearted bunch, mostly amused by our predicament. We motored to shore, and I asked one of the crew how much the rescue operation was going to cost me.
He explained that, in fact, the rescue was a free service. It is what the fire department does.
In our society, endangered citizens do not hesitate to call 911. Imagine if the police sent someone a bill after investigating an armed robbery or sexual assault. In America, we can do better than that. As such, even though Sato and I faced a danger rather mundane, something more like an embarrassing inconvenience, we were rescued for free.
Unfortunately, this logic does not hold true in so many regards. We can afford to save poor people from burning buildings, but they will need to choose between electricity and insulin. Or maybe they won't be able to afford either.
This double standard illuminates the basic incoherence of modern budget hawkery. There are certain rights (and, granted, a large region of gray area) required by every citizen. This is why we don't privatize the police. And, when the time comes to consider our budget priorities, these basic rights should not be used as bargaining chips; they should not be on the table.
President Obama, in this week's address, asks Congress to renew a transportation bill so that roads, bridges, and highways can be repaired and maintained. This is a responsibility that Congress needs to bankroll with federal dollars, regardless of our fiscal dilemma. It will be a sound investment in terms of job growth, efficiency, and quality of life. But just as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor questions whether government can afford to provide emergency assistance to Irene victims, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have made a habit of disregarding these basic rights in what the President labels "political gamesmanship."
We will see in the weeks to come whether the transportation bill will precipitate another rancorous stalemate or, at long last, bipartisan compromise. The President is worried, which is understandable, following the summer-long debt ceiling theatrics. But I would rather wait for Republicans to flesh out a coherent response before invoking panic and dire warnings. Best not to cry wolf. And it would seem that if Congress can agree on anything, filling potholes would be a good place to start.
I say, let's hope Washington puts pavement before politics, and enjoy the free roads while we've got them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)