Day 14: Lost Opportunity

Two weeks was long enough—more than long enough, in fact. Post-inaugural euphoria was beginning to dissipate, and two weeks would give the appearance that the time required for some tough, ‘out-of-the-box thinking’ had elapsed. That day, Monday, February 2, was the day that Nancy Killefer, the nation’s first, albeit short-lived, Chief Performance Officer (CPO) should have stood behind the banks of microphones and announced the U.S. Department of Education as the first Federal agency to be slated for major overhaul on her watch.

This would have been the perfect bold, first action on the part of the new CPO, appearing to everyone as proof of a refreshingly new approach to government, and early validation of President Obama’s visionary leadership, all the while requiring no more heavy lifting than surfing on over to the Department of Education’s own website and letting the agency make her case for her, “education in America is primarily a State and local responsibility…”.

To the uninitiated, President Obama’s charge to the nation’s first CPO of identifying and rooting-out wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective federal programs and agencies might seem a daunting task, but to Ms. Killefer it must have been a dream-come-true. As any management consultant worth their per diem would agree, Washington is what can best be described as a “target-rich environment”.

But it wasn’t to be. On what proved to be the penultimate day of her appointment, Ms. Killefer was silent, and rather than a recommendation by the nation’s first CPO demonstrating equal measures courage, common sense, and seriousness of purpose, the nation was treated instead to the First Lady speaking to a standing-room-only gathering of Department of Education employees, talking about the essential nature of the agency at the “forefront” of her husband’s administrative agenda.

With her performance that day, Ms. Obama demonstrated that her husband isn’t the only member of the Obama household with the ability to tell people what they want to hear, while armed with full knowledge that the facts don’t bear-out his/her words.

But, talk is cheap (although, certainly not in this case where Ms. Obama’s husband two weeks later signed the nominal “stimulus” bill that included a staggering $140 Billion allocated to the Department of Education over the next two years). Actions are what reveal true convictions, and when it comes to the subject of public elementary and secondary education, Ms. Obama’s actions belie her words. For, at that exact moment when Ms. Obama was praising the Department of Education for it’s vital past and future role in educating the nation’s children, her children were attending their classes at the private Sidwell Friends School.

President and Ms. Obama may say what they want about public education, but the “uncomfortable fact” (to borrow a phrase from President Obama’s writings on education reform) is that while the President does wield a great deal of indirect influence over the education of children through the Department of Education, the only children over whose education he and Ms. Obama have absolute, direct control are their own. And, this is the inflection point of the Obamas’ rhetoric and actions.

Now, to be fair, no honest assessment of the Washington D.C. public schools would ever fault the Obamas, or any other parents, for opting-out of that system for the sake of their children’s education—no child’s future should be sacrificed to a parent’s political posturing—but the Obamas’ track record in this regard is not isolated to the D.C. public school system. Prior to moving into the D.C. public school district, the Obamas sent their children to the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. So, while Ms. Obama stands before Department of Education staffers and claims that she “wouldn't be [there] if it weren't for the public schools that nurtured me and helped me along”, clearly she finds the Billions of dollars spent annually by the Department of Education on elementary and secondary programs insufficient to the task of ‘nurturing’ her children. Where we can, and do, fault President and Ms. Obama is in their continued promotion of the Department of Education as worthy of our trust (and money) in preparing our children for the future (just not theirs).

Unfortunately, this audacity of hype shows no signs of abating. Since Day 14 of his administration, President Obama has not only given the Department of Education a staggering $140 Billion under the guise of “stimulus”, but debate has now begun on the elimination of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship public school voucher program that provides some of the Obamas’ fellow D.C. residents with the financial wherewithal (at least some if not all) to make the same opt-out decision for their children as the Obamas make for theirs. While it’s possible that this debate is evidence of exactly the type of two-tier system that President Obama publicly claims to oppose, it’s far more likely recognition by Dick Durbin and other voucher opponents that every cashed voucher is a no-confidence vote on the Department of Education and the more than $.5 Trillion that it’s spent over the past 28-years on elementary and secondary education programs with no demonstrable contribution to educational outcomes.

We should be grateful that education is “primarily a State and local responsibility”—who knows how much this flawed system would cost us if it was actually a Federal responsibility.

Copyright © 2009, point05
(http://www.pt05.blogspot.com/)
...Read more!

The Insufficiency of Hope

Hope is a wonderful thing—as anyone who has ever experienced firsthand the effect of a positive attitude on surviving life-threatening disease and its treatment can attest.

It’s this recognition of Hope’s power and inherent goodness that leads to its universal acceptance as a worthy ideal, and to the perception of those who invoke it as righteous and altruistic. But, even more important than those factors, it’s Hope’s intrinsic nebulous, immeasurable, unprovable nature that make it a worthy companion on the campaign trail. So, it’s no accident that “The Man from Hope” and “The Audacity of Hope” were rallying themes for both of the most recent successful Democratic presidential candidates.

However, no matter what else it might be, Hope is not an economic recovery plan—nor will it ever be. Hope might garner a lot of 'street cred' along the campaign trail where vagaries and style trump substance, but it doesn’t get the job done in the Oval Office where the nation’s complex, multi-dimensional problems demand specific, comprehensive, and well-conceived plans and solutions.

While nothing tried so far has worked to slow, much less reverse, the economic slide toward the next not-so-Great Depression, there’s always Hope. But that’s the funny thing about Hope—while we may always have it, when it’s all we have left, we don’t even have that.

Copyright © 2009, point05
(www.pt05.blogspot.com)
...Read more!