A possible fix for our schools

Education in California, perhaps other states as well, is going down the wrong road, into a dead end. One of our strengths has been an education system that has produced leaders and innovators. Now, between entrenched 19th century policies and our current miserly attitude, we'll raise a generation ill prepared to take their place in today's world.

Unfortunately, we can't fix it without stepping on many toes. In order to get some things, we must give up other things.

One of the things we need to give up is job security. Teacher tenure was a good concept a century ago, but it's no longer necessary. Teachers have certificates and are not political appointees.

It makes no sense to talk about teacher accountability if bad teachers, as well as good, are virtually impossible to remove. It would be better to have annual evaluations during a two to three year probation period, then evaluations every three and eventually every five years, unless a problem comes up that must be addressed quickly. A good teacher would get rubber stamped at each evaluation, a teacher with problems could be coached, and if that fails, let go.

The same thing should apply to classified staff. These people are now almost impossible to get rid of, and a poor employee can bump an employee who is doing well in a position. These people, should they get a negative evaluation, and if they don't improve their performances, should be given notice that they will not be back the following year.

Administrators shouldn't be exempt from this process. For starters, we need a law stating that no more than 15% of a district's budget can go to administration. This would stop the continual growth at the district office level. Also, these peoples' jobs should not be protected by the old boy, old girl network.

How do we decide who is doing a good job and should be rewarded, as opposed to those doing so poorly they should be fired? The current system won't do it. Generally, the school board works for the administration, even though they are elected by the voters. The reality is that most voters don't know and/or don't care about what goes on at the school district, so they vote the person who knocks on their or has a good sound bite.

School boards should be appointed. Here's a rough plan for doing so. Various stakeholders should appoint a member of the board: One from the teachers, one from the classified staff, one from administration, one from a parent advisory group, one from each political entity served by the district (one if the district is a city school district and more if the district extends to cities, county or more than one county). There should also be a member selected from the students, probably high school level.

If a teacher has been brought up for possible dismissal, the teacher member of the board would naturally oppose it, while the administration member would support it. The other board members would hear the evidence and vote with one or the other. A bad administrator, charged by the teachers with incompetence, would be defended by the administrator, prosecuted by the teachers, and the other members would hear evidence and vote accordingly.

Appointed board members, should they fail to discharge their duties, could be removed quickly by the entity that appointed them, rather than waiting for the next election. Also, being appointed by stakeholders, members would be better suited to look out for the interests of the their groups, and the mix would make sure everyone is represented.

In the end, the winners would be the students, as their education, not politics would be primary. Another winner would be the tax payers, as a better run school system would do more with less resources.

Obama as Nero

I hate to say this, having voted for him, but when I hear "President Obama," I think Nero. Practically all most of us know about Nero was that he fiddled while Rome burned, a fire he likely was responsible for.

I guess America could be thought of as the Rome of the modern era, and it isn't literally burning, but "burning" is a good metaphor.

There are many elements coming together to cause this metaphoric conflagration. For openers, the economic is still is disarray, and unemployment is over 10 percent. Foreclosures have put many of our neighbors out on the street.

Congress is about to raise the national debt ceiling again, meaning we'll be in debt for generations. The government is bleeding money, but none of it seems to be putting people to work.

It turns out that billions are going south over to Mexico to fuel the drug cartels and their wave of violence. At the same time, we have teens wandering around the streets of our cities carrying loaded guns and shooting each other, along with any innocent bystander who happens to get in the way.

These are problems that need to addressed right now, problems we could spend some of the billions we are collectively going into debt for. Why doesn't that seem to be happening?

It seems that while America is in a melt down, President Obama is fiddling around in Afghanistan and Iraq, throwing billions of our tax money at wars of choice. That's right, choice. These countries aren't attacking us, and the people there would probably be less hostile toward us if we'd just go away and leave them alone.

But no, we send the money that could put people to work, and now our young men and women sign up to be cannon fodder in order to be able to earn a living. At the same time we are bribing the "enemy" not to blow up our supply caravans, and we're paying foreign countries to be our "friends" and to take our side.

Let's see, we only have two viable political parties, and they both believe in wasting our resources on endless wars of choice, rather than help our people, and all we can do is sit here and watch Rome burn.

Obama's speech and the idea of evil

President Obama made his speech accepting the Peace Prize, and, ironically, he devoted much time to the subject of war. Agreed, there are times you must wage war to arrive at peace, as in the defeat of Hitler. But, rather than get mired in the question of whether war is justified or not, I found with I consider a serious problem in Obama's remarks.

He said, "For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."

My question is why did he have to invoke some vague supernatural force, some ancient reference to gods and devils, implying enlightened beings and dark forces? This is only one step removed from, "We have God on our side."

This whole notion of good vs. evil goes back at least to Zoroastrianism with the good god Ahura Mazda in opposition to the evil one, Angra Mainyu, now renamed "God and the Devil." It all reads much like J. R. R. Tolkien's Ring Trilogy. The whole notion seems too easy an explanation, while not explaining much at all. Like the idea of the soul, good and evil aren't something you can put under a microscope or weigh or make any other determination about. These are labels, and we always use the "good" label to identify ourselves, and the "evil" label for the other guys.

I'm more comfortable with labels such as, "Ignorance, religious fanaticism, criminal activity, sociopathic personality and thugs for hire" to explain why some people do really nasty things, such as murder, rape and other kinds of abuse. At least these terms are descriptive, and we can address what actually happens. If the Taliban's education extended beyond the Koran, perhaps they wouldn't be so hostile to differing viewpoints. As far as religious fanaticism, that has a brutal past in all religions. Also, if people are dirt poor and someone offers them $250 per month to kill the American invaders, that's not evil, it's just trying to keep food on the table.

With statements like "Evil does exist in the world," Obama sounded, not like the super rational person he is supposed to be, but much like Bush, in whose world view everything was either black or white.

Obama plans to bring the troops home eventually

Obama promised to start bringing troops home from Afghanistan in July of 2011, and I believe him. I also read where the decision on how many to bring home and how fast is still unsettled.

So, I called a contact deeply embedded in the Washington scene, and he was more than willing to give me the inside information, particularly after seeing the embarrassing photo I have of him.

Well, it turns out that the withdrawal decisions have already been made, Obama being a stickler for detail. It turns out that a full company of men will return stateside each month. A typical company has about 200 men.

By the time we start withdrawing our troops, we will have about 100,000 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. So, if we are diligent about bringing home a company each and every month, we'll have all our boys home in just over 41 years. Now, there is talk of bringing home an entire battalion during Christmas each year. That would get everyone home in just under 36 years.

I think it is safe to tell your little grandchildren that they will be able to celebrate the end of the war before they retire.

Obama's plan to put 30,000 Americans to work.

Dec. 1. President Obama outlined his new job creation program to help reduce our soaring unemployment rate. He calls it the Afghanistan troupe surge. This program, according to the President, will create between 30,000 and 35,000 new jobs, and because of the high mortality rate, 40,000 potential jobs could be created.

The cost of this program, divided between all the new jobs, comes to approximately $1,000,000 per job of taxpayers money. He reasons that the American worker, willing to support the excesses of the banking industry, won't balk at a few billion more to put young men and women to work.