Educational Standards

There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News by Faith Davis Johnson arguing the need for national education standards. In her editorial, Johnson takes issue with those resistant to national standards. Governor Perry of Texas was named in particular. Perry's comment that "the citizens of Texas, not the federal government, know what is best for our children" seemed to irritate Johnson in particular. She disagrees that the citizens of Texas know what is best for their children and seems to assert that only the federal government is in position to know what is best for our children. Presumably, among the citizens of Texas being discussed, are parents.

Davis buttresses her argument by citing statistics revealing how poorly U.S. students fair against foreign students in math and science. There are many provocative statistics available to demonstrate the poor performance of U.S. students when compared against students in other nations; Japan apparently being the measure of choice for many. The statistics are difficult to ignore. As is often the case, the blame for this is assigned not to teachers, parents, or students, but to curriculum. This is no doubt why discussion about education reform is almost always about curriculum, text books, and budgets. Many seem to assume education is a process not entirely unlike baking a cake. With the right ingredients and the right recipe, a quality product is assured.

But educating children is not like baking a cake. Children are different. Parents are different. Teachers are different; well, before the preoccupation with certification and method, they were different. Johnson argues that what is needed is a uniform curriculum, taught according to uniform standards, with uniform text books by uniform teachers.

Ignorance is not simply the results of poor teachers, curriculum, or text books. There is a human element involved as well. But the human element is the most difficult to address, particularly in a society prone to give short shrift to human nature. If people are simply products of a system, be it an educational system, an economic system, a social system, etc, then achieving desired results is simply a matter of adjusting the system. The easiest way to adjust a system is by manipulating it. One manipulates an educational system through standards, tests, incentives, and curriculum. To try and improve the system by addressing the aptitude and motivation of teachers and parents is near impossible; even if one was reckless enough to try.

I find it difficult to believe that either Davis or the governor knows what is best for children. Even less do I believe the federal government knows what is best for children. They might know the results they want, but they are manifestly incompetent to bring those results about. It is curious that when comparisons are made between education in the U.S. and education in other countries, those comparisons usually only focus such things as hours, money, and curriculum. Rarely, if ever, do they concern themselves with broader and softer factors such as parenting or motivation. It is easier, and more convenient to compare Japanese schools to American schools than to compare Japanese students, teachers, and parents to American. It is also less likely to offend.

Until we here in the U.S. are willing to take a tough look at our students, teachers, and parents, not just our curriculum, we will continue to be preoccupied with numbers and standards. And while we are so preoccupied, our educational system will continue to flounder. A better cake is about more than a better recipe. Sometimes better ingredients and a better baker are needed as well.

Peace Prize for Effort

President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize Thursday for his efforts in behalf of world peace. If they were alive today, no doubt Marshal Zhukov and General Patton would be nominated for the Peace Prize. Few men in history have worked as hard or as diligently for peace as Patton and Zhukov. In light of Obama's prize for his efforts in behalf of world peace, I believe Patton's and Zhukov's nomination would be justified. Unlike Obama, Patton and Zhukov were instrumental in actually ending a war. Obama is not even close to ending a war. But then again, Obama is much more popular and eloquent than Patton or Zhukov could ever have hoped to be.

Obama has not resolved a conflict or ended a war. Evidently, sometimes eloquently talking about peace is enough, even when one is fighting a war. Obama claimed he was humbled by the prize. Let us hope he is.

Tax Cuts: Tactic or Policy?

There were two articles in this morning's Dallas Morning News printed side by side. The first article concerned the announcement by the Texas Workforce Commission that most businesses in Texas will have to pay nearly triple the unemployment taxes they paid last year. It is said that, across the board, unemployment taxes next year will nearly double. More money is needed as the economic downturn continues. It seems the Workforce Commission believes that raising taxes on businesses is good way to assist the unemployed.

The other article concerned plans by the Obama administration to lower small business taxes as an incentive to encourage them to hire. It is hoped that those tax cuts will boost the job market. As a layman, I am often perplexed by the economic ramifications of manipulating the tax code. While there are many who understand much more about taxes and economics than people such as myself, these people only rarely agree with each other. What there does seem to be agreement on is that lower taxes encourage activity, and higher taxes discourage activity. So it appears that, in an odd turn of events, the lowering of taxes by Washington will offset the raising of taxes by Texas. Whether small businesses in Texas will come out ahead, remains to be seen.

President Obama, in announcing his plan, stated his goal is to stimulate the economy through lowering taxes. He also stated that he wants to work with Congress to develop "stimulus" programs to help those who are out of work. I wonder why Obama doesn't just pick one policy; either lower taxes or increased spending, and see if it works. If one doesn't work, one can always try the other. The inability to pick a plan and stick with it, rather than flail at a problem, seems to indicate indecision, if not frustration. Obama wants the recession to go away so he can get back to his plans to expand the federal government and cement it as the lodestar of political, economic, and social life. But he seems unable to decide the best way to do it. The frustration no doubt felt by the administration lay in their impatience at the slow pace at which the economy moves. An economy as large as the U.S.'s does not change direction quickly. Obama is no doubt aware of this. What he is seeking are the statistics needed to demonstrate that the economy is changing direction. Once people are persuaded that the economy is improving, he can refocus his energy on National Health Care and expanding government.

If and when the dust clears, and a national health care plan is passed, it is likely Obama and Congress will seek to recoup their losses by revisiting the tax cuts and incentives they were forced to concede. In Washington, tax cuts are more often a tactic than a strategy.