Under My Government......

I used to enjoy reading Judd Arnett's column in the Detroit Free Press, way back when.  (I know, I know......  The Free Press?)  Once in a while he'd offer his opinions on how to run things, under the heading "Under My Government."  It was always thought-provoking.

I thought of that today when I was considering Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.  If I were in her position, today, I think I'd start out this way.  I would invite, perhaps together, perhaps separately, the presidents of the two national teachers' unions to lunch.  I'd only ask questions.  "What do you see as the major problem with American education today?"  "What other major problems are there that need to be addressed?"  "What is the role of teachers' unions," namely the AFT and NEA?  And so on.  I would just listen, making sure that my lunch partners realized I was listening, really listening.

Now, I would also hope I wouldn't get the stock/standard teachers' union answers to my questions.  I might have to be a bit more probing.  And I wouldn't be dismissive of any of their concerns.  There may or may not be common ground, but how are we to know if we don't talk--and listen?

Next, I'd go to people I trusted and ask them to identify their best teachers, not their favorite ones.  I wouldn't automatically go to the "teacher-of-the-year" winners.  Some of them might well be among the list I would compile, but from my experiences, I'm very leery of recipients of these types of  awards.  Then I'd make a point of talking with them, too, in groups or individually, mostly asking questions--and listening.  The conversations would be confidential, encouraging an open dialogue with no fear of any retribution or repercussions.

I read an op-ed from a former state superintendent of schools.  He called for "urgency" in efforts to improve schools.  One thing I am pretty sure I'd avoid is talking to many administrators, including superintendents, on ways to bolster education.  Why would anyone consult those who have been the captains of a sinking ship?  I know I wouldn't.

This is how I would start my tenure as Secretary of Education.  And I would move on from there, with luck bolstered with some good ideas from my listening.

I'd also, "under my government," question the Establishment Republicans, esp those in the US House of Representatives.  Remember the tough talk they had when four or five times they passed bills calling for the repeal of Obamacare?  Of course, there was no chance of any repeal.  If the Senate actually passed a similar bill, Obama's veto pen was at the ready.  So, now, with majorities in both houses of Congress, with a President ready to sign a repeal, where is the Establishment Republican action?  Talk about gutless!  It's easy to do something when it means nothing.  To do something of substance takes courage.  Former Speaker John Boehner said the other day the House wouldn't repeal it.  Do these fools still not see why Trump was nominated and elected??????   Are they that arrogantly blind or just plain stupid?  Is it a fruitless question to ask when the wishes and needs of the people will be addressed?  I fear it is.

I had two good laughs last week.  One was a quote from some Hollywood-type.  I don't remember his name; I didn't recognize his name.  He said something like, maybe not the exact words, but pretty close, "The Oscars still matter."  Heh Heh.  To whom do they "still matter?"  Maybe I have it all wrong and a lot a folks still pay attention.  I don't know.  It would be nice to see the ratings for the awards show, if the numbers can be trusted.

I read several articles last week about the newspaper industry or at least some influential (at least in their own minds?) newspapers.  They finally (?) have recognized that they are in trouble.  Among other things, they are hurting financially.  Again, I don't remember the exact words, but coming from several of these journalism-types was this, "Trust us.  Who else are you going to trust?"  I'm assuming that was said with a straight face.  But my face wasn't straight when I read that.

Also in  the department of hilarity was this, from Major League Baseball.  Apparently the MLB wants to "speed up games" by giving automatic intentional walks instead of making pitchers deliberately throw four balls.  There are several things with that, but let's focus on "speed up the games." What is this proposed new rule going to cut, 30 seconds, maybe a minute from a game?  How many intentional passes are given in a typical game?  I think I read somewhere that there are .2 free passes per team per game.  That means a team will issue an intentional walk once every five games.  If the league is really concerned about the length of games, I don't think this will make much difference.  And it will take away potentially exciting miscues.