Of the 50 largest public school systems in the country, 14 give their students less than a 50-50 chance of graduating in 4 years. Across the nation, 1/3 of all high school students don’t graduate on time.
Without functional schools, the next generation of Americans will not succeed and America will fail with them.
Our schools are crying out for reform, yet our public officials refuse to take action. The usual pattern is for special interest groups to claim any specific reform will hurt the children, when the truth is it will hurt them. School boards, unions and politicians protect their jobs while the children are forgotten.
We won’t have bold education reform until we prove what works in the real world …so let’s find out.
Detroit has by far the worst large school system in the country. Only 22% of it’s 9th graders graduate after 4 years. The next worst is Baltimore with a 38% graduation rate. If ever there were two school systems ripe for experimentation, these are it.
I propose using these two cities to conduct a grand experiment. One randomly chosen city would turn its school system over to the Heritage Foundation, a highly respected, conservative think tank, to run for 7 years. The city would continue to provide the current level of funding, but give Heritage absolute authority to implement cutting edge conservative educational reforms. The other city would turn its public schools over to the Brookings Institution, an equally respected liberal think tank, for similar experimentation with liberal reforms.
An obvious question is, why would these two cities agree to give up control over their schools? The altruistic answer is that they have proven themselves incompetent to educate their children. But if these schools are failing specifically because administrators and politicians care more about their own power than the education of our children, they will need additional motivation.
The irresistible incentive would be a 4 year college scholarship for every graduating senior in both cities. $20,000 per graduate would be sufficient to pay tuition and fees for a 50/50 mix of community college and lower cost state universities. Even if graduation rates skyrocket (which is the goal, after all), the total cost of the experiment would be under $1 billion. Congress thought it was a brilliant idea to spend $320 million to build a bridge in Alaska to an island of 50 people. With respect to our wise representatives, this would be a better way to spend our money.
The results of this grand experiment would be able to guide us in restoring our educational system for a generation. We wouldn’t have to argue and speculate about what to do. We would know.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
A Brief Window of Opportunity
Every generation or so, a brief window opens when it is possible to get something big done.
A large part of the outrage against the Republican 109th Congress was over irresponsible spending. Every American has now heard of “earmarks” and the infamous “bridge to nowhere”. That outrage has developed into a consensus that pork barrel spending is out of control.
The line item veto has been requested by every President in the last generation and has been accepted by both parties as an effective measure to control wasteful spending, yet a constitutional amendment to give the President the line item veto has never passed.
The problem is that members of Congress don’t want to give a President of the other party increased power over spending. That’s why the next few months are an unusual opportunity.
A line item veto amendment would not be ratified by the states before the next President takes office and right now, no one knows which party will have the White House in 2009. There is no incumbent President or Vice President on the ballot and opinion polls don’t show a significant advantage for either party.
Republicans have an incentive to pass the amendment to reclaim their image of fiscal responsibility. Democrats have an incentive to pass it to show that they are better stewards of the public’s money than Republicans were.
All that’s needed now is a nudge. That’s where Presidential primary politics comes into play.
Both parties have a front runner that needs to solidify their position. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could conspire …sorry, I meant rise above partisan politics, to jointly ask Congress to give the line item veto to the next President.
This would benefit them both. They would have more control over the budget if elected, they would be seen as rising above partisanship (which the public loves), and they would solidify themselves as presumptive nominees by showing that they are taking action to solve America’s problems even before they step foot into the oval office.
This window of opportunity opened when the two candidates became front runners and gained an incentive to work together to solidify their positions. It will close when they are assured of the nominations and start running against each other.
In politics, opportunities are everywhere. They lay on the ground like leaves in the fall. I will never cease to be amazed that millions are spent on consultants who can’t see them.
A large part of the outrage against the Republican 109th Congress was over irresponsible spending. Every American has now heard of “earmarks” and the infamous “bridge to nowhere”. That outrage has developed into a consensus that pork barrel spending is out of control.
The line item veto has been requested by every President in the last generation and has been accepted by both parties as an effective measure to control wasteful spending, yet a constitutional amendment to give the President the line item veto has never passed.
The problem is that members of Congress don’t want to give a President of the other party increased power over spending. That’s why the next few months are an unusual opportunity.
A line item veto amendment would not be ratified by the states before the next President takes office and right now, no one knows which party will have the White House in 2009. There is no incumbent President or Vice President on the ballot and opinion polls don’t show a significant advantage for either party.
Republicans have an incentive to pass the amendment to reclaim their image of fiscal responsibility. Democrats have an incentive to pass it to show that they are better stewards of the public’s money than Republicans were.
All that’s needed now is a nudge. That’s where Presidential primary politics comes into play.
Both parties have a front runner that needs to solidify their position. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could conspire …sorry, I meant rise above partisan politics, to jointly ask Congress to give the line item veto to the next President.
This would benefit them both. They would have more control over the budget if elected, they would be seen as rising above partisanship (which the public loves), and they would solidify themselves as presumptive nominees by showing that they are taking action to solve America’s problems even before they step foot into the oval office.
This window of opportunity opened when the two candidates became front runners and gained an incentive to work together to solidify their positions. It will close when they are assured of the nominations and start running against each other.
In politics, opportunities are everywhere. They lay on the ground like leaves in the fall. I will never cease to be amazed that millions are spent on consultants who can’t see them.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Battlefield Congress
Politics is an inseparable part of war. It is a front that must be defended. If you don’t, the enemy can win as surely as if they destroyed your army in the field. In the Iraq war, this front is undefended.
Eventually, Democrats, joined by an increasing number of Republicans will impose a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq. If the President fails to develop a plan to fight that political aspect of the conflict, he will loose the war.
Think of it in classical military terms. You are fighting a war on multiple fronts. You are making slow progress that could lead to victory with enough time, but on one front the enemy is massing an overwhelming force that can not be stopped. Any first year West Point cadet will tell you that the appropriate tactic is a delaying action.
DOD defines a delaying action as “An operation in which a force under pressure trades space for time by slowing down the enemy’s momentum.”
In other words, retreat slowly in one place, to buy time for your other forces to win the war.
After Gen. Petraeus gives his report in September, it will be too late. Pressure in Congress to impose an immediate withdrawal will become irresistible. Only before that point does the President have the option of announcing a time table for withdrawal that is long enough and flexible enough to leave open the possibility of victory.
Just prior to the September report, the President should announce:
“The Baghdad security plan has improved the situation on the ground sufficiently to begin the transfer of primary security responsibility for all of Iraq’s provinces to Iraqi forces. Therefore, consistent with military realities on the ground, we set a goal of transitioning from our current 155,000 man combat force to a 75,000 man training, advisory and counter terrorism role to begin within 6 months and to be completed within 18 months.”
With this announcement, the President would de-fang critics who are demanding immediate withdrawal. Any who complain that it isn’t fast enough or that the President leaves himself too much wiggle room in “consistent with military realities on the ground” would look like extremists who will accept nothing less than immediate defeat.
It would dramatically increase the support of the American people, who at heart, just want to be reassured that the war isn’t going to go on forever, and most importantly, it would buy the President additional time to produce a positive result in Iraq.
Embracing a time line of his own design would give the President a free hand in the conduct of the war until nearly the end of his Presidency. Failure to recognize the imperative of defending the political front deprives the President of that advantage.
Eventually, Democrats, joined by an increasing number of Republicans will impose a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq. If the President fails to develop a plan to fight that political aspect of the conflict, he will loose the war.
Think of it in classical military terms. You are fighting a war on multiple fronts. You are making slow progress that could lead to victory with enough time, but on one front the enemy is massing an overwhelming force that can not be stopped. Any first year West Point cadet will tell you that the appropriate tactic is a delaying action.
DOD defines a delaying action as “An operation in which a force under pressure trades space for time by slowing down the enemy’s momentum.”
In other words, retreat slowly in one place, to buy time for your other forces to win the war.
After Gen. Petraeus gives his report in September, it will be too late. Pressure in Congress to impose an immediate withdrawal will become irresistible. Only before that point does the President have the option of announcing a time table for withdrawal that is long enough and flexible enough to leave open the possibility of victory.
Just prior to the September report, the President should announce:
“The Baghdad security plan has improved the situation on the ground sufficiently to begin the transfer of primary security responsibility for all of Iraq’s provinces to Iraqi forces. Therefore, consistent with military realities on the ground, we set a goal of transitioning from our current 155,000 man combat force to a 75,000 man training, advisory and counter terrorism role to begin within 6 months and to be completed within 18 months.”
With this announcement, the President would de-fang critics who are demanding immediate withdrawal. Any who complain that it isn’t fast enough or that the President leaves himself too much wiggle room in “consistent with military realities on the ground” would look like extremists who will accept nothing less than immediate defeat.
It would dramatically increase the support of the American people, who at heart, just want to be reassured that the war isn’t going to go on forever, and most importantly, it would buy the President additional time to produce a positive result in Iraq.
Embracing a time line of his own design would give the President a free hand in the conduct of the war until nearly the end of his Presidency. Failure to recognize the imperative of defending the political front deprives the President of that advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)