Turning Education Around - A Personal Vision

Here’s what I believe: To provide quality public education in America we simply must increase what we are willing to pay for it. We all know that “you get what you pay for,” and that the society is better off when its population is truly well educated, yet this is a hard concept to sell.

Every child in America needs to know how to read, how to speak and write proper English, how our government works, some rudimentary science, and how to perform calculations using at least basic arithmetic. Geography and history — state, national and world — should also be required, although the depth of study may vary with the student's goals in life. Now that we see how the international world of the 21st century is evolving, a case can be made for requiring computer skills and at least some foreign language. Right there you've got enough to fill most of a present school day, but we can do more.

English literature classes should teach the classics, including the great essayists and poets. History classes should include biographies of ancient and contemporary notables. Great plays, from Shakespeare to modern classics, should be taught in high school English classes -- with students encouraged to expand their horizons in a school-sponsored theater company.

Ranchers and policemen, doctors, lawyers and merchants, cooks and crossing guards and truck drivers all benefit from exposure to these arts. Steeped in the past and great works that were produced over the centuries, our children will develop a sense of our evolution and place in time; they will find models and inspiration and understanding of the present.

Foreign language should be taught as early as possible, preferably beginning in elementary school, and for at least two or three years at a stretch. Early study of another language leads to a better understanding of English, teaches the concept that there is a world beyond us, and builds the foundation for future proficiency in whatever language (including computer) the student may elect to study.

Every child, from the first grade on, should be instructed in the fine arts — music and the studio arts, in particular. From the primary grades, children should be taught the rudiments of the graphic arts. Dance can be incorporated into physical education classes (which should be required through all twelve grades). Children who wish to learn to play an instrument should be given the opportunity; choral music should be taught right along with appreciation of the classics, and interested students encouraged to join a school chorale or musical production group.

A lifetime connection with the arts, begun in school, will be a comfort and a pleasure throughout life. So much of the world around us is better understood — and enjoyed — when we have a broad foundation in the arts from the early years. I date the decline in our educational "product" from the decision, in the late 'fifties or early 'sixties (after Sputnik beat us into space), to refocus our public education on science and math.

Every eighth-grader should understand our political system, be required to read the national and international news section of a major newspaper or news magazine at least weekly, and to participate in classroom evaluations of the election process at election time. Too many Americans base their opinions on hearsay, talk shows, trash writings, and TV sound bites; worse yet, they impart their misinformation to their children who, without a decent civics education, perpetuate the problem.

You may say there just isn't time in the school day to teach all the new material there is, let alone all these "extras." There is no time or staff for extracurricular activities. And we certainly don't have the funds in our budget . . .

I say we go for broke: longer school days (with the fringe benefit of reducing the cost of child care for parents who must work outside the home, as well as reducing or eliminating the latchkey population and related opportunities for trouble); longer school years (that would also give teachers year-round employment); an exciting educational system that will attract the "best and brightest" teachers because they will be well paid and know they will be able to count on the respect and commitment of parents and students.

The outcome? Regardless of the number of youngsters who go on to college or university, we will have produced a new generation of educated, informed, acculturated citizens who are qualified to take on the responsibility for America.

Every one of us has an interest in spending what it takes to achieve greatness.

Whence our incivility?

From “out there” in our society, angry declamations — from criticism through mild hostility to seething fury — travel through the ether, over the air waves and onto the pages of our newspapers and seem finally to have reached the shock level.

I speak of some undisclosed, subsurface anger; anger without external provocation, anger that lies beneath the surface fabric woven of our everyday human interactions. This latent fury erupts like a mound of fire ants, unpredictable as to time and place; we can usually deal with it, but as often as not it will pop up again nearby.

It has been manifest for years in the popularity of people like Imus and Limbaugh, in the coarsening of our political commentary, and of course most devastatingly in incidents of random violence, from "road rage" to the "Unabomber," from the D. C. snipers to schoolyard shooters.

I have no credentials as a psychologist or sociologist, so cannot examine the American psyche with any expertise. But it doesn’t take any kind of specialist to recognize hate when it hits you in the solar plexus.

This past weekend brought considerable discussion about threats to female bloggers made by anonymous (always!) posters. From deep in my memory bank I drew a recollection from a dozen years ago: I was watching a discussion on C-Span between a very mild mannered anchor and his guests, two equally pleasant and well-mannered journalists with differing political leanings; they were discussing the convention they were covering and responding to telephoned questions and comments from viewers.

It isn’t unusual for a caller to promote one point of view or attack another, nor is excoriation of public figures unheard of. But it suddenly became personal, when a caller who began by angrily denouncing what he perceived to be the wrong political opinions of one of the guests, a woman, concluded with a suggestion that involved Jack Kevorkian. I saw her blanch slightly even as I felt a thump of fear within me: it was scary.

What is going on in America? Sure, there are bugs and glitches in the way things work, certainly there are frustrations related to any aspect of our society — there always have been and always will be, because it is a dynamic organism. But this is not France in 1789, when conditions of the ordinary citizen were so miserable as to foment revolution. These angry voices attack, but don’t lament; they are furious about something, but it’s not the condition of themselves or their brethren.

The anger is not a new phenomenon, but over the last dozen years it seems to be growing exponentially. Perhaps it has always been there, obscured by a socially acceptable outlet in gearing up for, fighting, and then coming down from all the wars and almost-wars. With no mutually agreed enemy to despise, have we simply turned it inward?

Or can it be simply that because the opportunities for venting without fear of reprisal have expanded with technology, it is only an illusion that there is more anger now?

One thing is certain: From the perversion of CB radio to the ascendancy of call-in shows, to hate groups and terrorist wannabes exchanging venom on the Internet, to the ubiquitous anonymous poster of today, the Unknown Angry American is no longer limited to a hand gesture on the highway.

A single-payer health plan that could pass

Synopsis: Proposal for a Single Payer Partnership, funded equally by employer and employee, modeled after self-insured industries, administered by insurance companies selected through competitive bidding in the respective States.

A Plan Even Harry and Louise Could Love

The insurance industry has fought to continue the present system, because it is profitable. Employers famously complain that it would be too expensive to provide workers with health insurance. Too many working Americans must buy insurance they can’t really afford or risk losing everything because of major medical expenses. How about a plan that will protect each of these groups while providing basic health care for all Americans?

I propose a single-payer system — call it a Single Payer Partnership — funded by equal contributions from employer and employee (á la Social Security) plus taxes most people will agree to, such as on cigarettes, whiskey and killer bullets. Each State (no Big Government threat here!) would solicit proposals from individual insurance companies or consortiums to administer that State’s share of the fund; the best qualifying proposal in each State would be awarded the contract for that State — subject to review and renewal as are other government contracts — under which the winning bidder would be paid to administer the fund.

PRESTO! Health care for everyone, administered by those most experienced in doing so. Part of the cost savings is immediate, with insurance premiums eliminated, but with the insurance industry still a major partner and thereby continuing to make money; employers will not have to foot the whole bill because employees will (gladly) contribute a fair share; and the uninsured are now included.

Those already covered by Medicare and related plans — the elderly, the disabled, the indigent and certain low-income workers — are brought into this universal plan, along with their present health care funding (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SSI). There should be additional savings realized when everyone is under one umbrella.

The insurance companies should like this plan, because it will keep them in the loop at a lesser risk to them (if in fact health insurance is as risky as they would have us believe). And there will still be a need for “gap” packages such as are now being sold to Medicare recipients as Part B — as well as a market for new policies of life insurance for those who now can afford it!

It is reasonable for employers, large and small, to contribute to their employees’ health care, since a healthy work force benefits the employer as it benefits and advances the greater society. But no doubt the employer will write off its share of the insurance fund, and perhaps raise the price of pizza by 50 cents. We can live with that.

The benefit to the economy, in addition to controlling out-of-bounds medical costs and freeing up more money for voluntary spending, will derive in part from increased job stability and work force quality. Many people now take jobs they don’t want, or leave jobs they like, just because of health insurance concerns; it will now be easier to attract and keep quality employees. More folks will be able to become self-employed because of the safety net, and this should lead to more jobs being available.

Existing Models

As anyone with Medicare experience knows, that plan actually works quite well. You choose your own doctor. You can choose to buy a “gap” policy, or not. You can choose your treatment. Freedom of choice is everywhere. Obviously, Medicare could be the model for a single-payer health care system.

Another model, that might be seen as a microcosm of the Single Payer Partnership proposal, is already common in U. S. industry, and it works. Specifically:

The employer is self-insured — that is, the company maintains its own fund for payment of medical expenses for all employees, and pays a major insurance group to administer it. How blessedly simple! The employer saves money by hiring a manager instead of paying premiums to an insurance company which then pays for management but also must provide a profit to its shareholders.

For a modest, say $15, co-pay the employee can go to whatever doctor he chooses, undergo whatever procedure he chooses, and if the procedure is not covered and/or he has chosen a doctor who has not agreed to the fee structure set by the insurance company, the procedure will still be available but will simply cost him more. The employee contributes to the monthly premium and has an also modest annual deductible for optional procedures — all quite manageable for the average working person.

With affordable health insurance available, the employee will almost always opt for wellness care, with the inevitable reduction in costs over time, and everyone wins.

There IS a Health Care Crisis

So long as frightened parents have to go on television to beg for money to save a child’s life; so long as people with diabetes, cancer or heart disease can be denied medical insurance or be obliged to pay thousands of dollars a year in increased premiums; so long as millions of Americans drudge along in jobs they hate and/or put up with poor working conditions just to get or keep insurance, there is a crisis.

In this rich country of ours, there is no excuse for anyone going without decent medical care, yet we lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in providing for our own.

John McCain

Damned shame. He has squandered the one thing he had going for him and now he is done.

Choose living!

I often wonder why more of the opinion journalists don’t mention the other “alternative” for the John Edwards family — hanging up the campaign and then doing . . . what? And someone should respond to the idiots who chastise them for “not choosing to spend this time with their children”; I clearly heard Elizabeth say that they take the kids with them almost everywhere. Bet that’s more quality time than most parents give . . .