… as drawn up on the back of a New Jersey diner placemat in January of 2012.

Enactment of a true DREAM Act

Balanced federal budget on a rolling four-year basis

Decisions on gay marriage and abortion legislation retained at the state level

Removal of all American shooting troops currently stationed on foreign soil

Implementation of a Progressive Consumption Tax, with higher rates than at present

Elimination of the corporate tax on dividends

A minimum cash tax rate for all companies

An inflator for all federal sources of college financial aid

Extend unemployment benefits to three years if one year used as a grant for documentable retraining

Increase community access to public school buildings, with payment to offset incremental costs

Partially privatize social security, by individual choice, make it fully funded

Shift prison spending for drug offenders to rehab facilities, including basic education

Make GED classes mandatory for all prisoners without high school diplomas

… at first blush four years later, I would not change anything above.

… on second re-reading, maybe I should be required to add a couple of thoughts, like a comment on Obamacare or immigration beyond simply a DREAM Act or the naming of a new Supreme Court Justice or gun control.

Nah, it is too much fun simply watching Trump and Sanders push the envelope of pragmatic sanity, confuse and irritate the elites of both coasts, and make one think warmly about that inexpensive house in Nicaragua if either dons the Presidential robe.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

In choosing a school, the prospective collegian often has multiple “helpful” people in his or her ear: mother, father, best friend, sibling, high school counselor, teacher, outside education advisor, and, of course, oneself.

Assume the student’s final decision is among three colleges with different characteristics.

One way to put together the inputs from different sources is to assign scores for each of the voices in the student’s ear. In other words, the reflective student is analyzing how each of the voices would react to certain variables.

The scoring system goes from 5: which means maximum confidence in a positive outcome for the student if he attends the school listed, to 1: the least confidence in a positive outcome.

These scores are applied to a list of variables relevant to the student and each of the schools being seriously considered by the student. Here are a few factors, in alphabetical order:

Academic rigor … Availability of contemplated major … Distance from home … Extracurricular opportunities … Net cost of attendance … Networking reputation … Time management

When you go to a high quality restaurant and pay for an expensive meal, but it is great food, drink, and ambiance, the price fades from memory. While the financial impact will reappear on the next credit card statement, the overall experience remains positive.

If you go to a college which scores high on all the non-financial characteristics, it probably is worth it, even with the debt that will become totally evident when the monthly repayment schedule commences.

To state the obvious, the summary score on the inputs from various voices is not meant to be a conclusive “answer” for the student. It is more like a stimulus to the student doing methodical thinking about the selection of a college.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

 

 

 

 

All my life I have wondered about “Somebody”.

Is “Somebody” a man or a woman, or perhaps a mythical combination of both? Does “Somebody” rent their residence or own a house with a mortgage and a picket fence, 1.9 kids, and a dog? Did “Somebody” complete four years of university education or drop out after eighth-grade or inherit enough money that education was irrelevant?

You see, I need to know these things because many times when I ask a person where they learned what they have just told me, their reply is, “Somebody told me.” Since the reason I often ask about the source is that I am not persuaded by the logic of the underlying information, I need to find this “Somebody,” the repository of great, albeit unexamined truths.

If I cannot find “Somebody,” I shall shift my attention to “That Guy.” My suspicion is that we are probably talking here about a college professor, but then again he could be a priest or a sanitation worker. I ask a person how he or she knows something and the response is, “That Guy told me.” No name or address or description or cell phone number; how do I Google “That Guy” so I too can learn truths which just ain’t so.

Aha, I’ve got it! Forget “Somebody” or That Guy.” Such individuals are veritable know-nothings compared with the penultimate source of revealed truth, the person to whom all turn to ascertain answers to life’s multiple puzzles.

I am referring to the ubiquitous “They.” Want to know why a course of action, at school or work or in a relationship, is considered advisable by the individual with whom you are talking; simple, “They” said so. Want to better understand the peculiarities of certain people or organizations in which you are interested? Check with “They.”

“They” can say anything about any person or subject and their statements are irrefutable; “They” can never be caught to be quoted directly, and “They” are never around to do a post-mortem on the consequences of their advice. Nonetheless, the accuracy of their pronouncements surely must be extremely high as people every day answer question after question with the succinct repeated declarative, “They said so.”

The beauty of “Somebody, That Guy and They” is abundantly clear: the real-life person involved is able to off-load individual responsibility for truly understanding the course of action that is outlined to you. He or she can place accountability on the shoulders of anonymity and evade any necessity for an “I” statement.

Too bad this approach does not work.

Take ownership of your thoughts and your actions will follow. The only person in the morning mirror is you.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

 

Everybody wants the ability in their job to earn enough money to meet basic needs, even if we tend to forget that truism in a country afflicted with both overall affluence and huge disparities in income: a roof over one’s head, some clothes (let’s not have a debate here about “needs” versus “wants”), and food on the table, hopefully not of the portion size which eventually brings big health bills. These are the tangible essentials, made more enjoyable of course by the presence of a supportive family and good friends.

Would it be helpful to put this simple, honest imagery in the guidance counselor speech to incoming high school freshmen? Would it not be preferable to have that message replace what seems to happen at present, either no message at all or a collection of words which convey the impression that it is college or bust for every single student?

Why not offer up the mother of all education information spreadsheets: an array of alternative routes and some inputs on the variables associated with each. (I am told that posting such a spreadsheet would look sloppy, and, as a non-techie, I am following said advice.) The headings at the top would not only range through every level of higher education, but would include entrepreneur, marketable skills (aka career/technical), and military columns. Every cost category would be on the left side of the spread sheet, plus numerous other variables: the number of years required to gain the eventual piece of paper if relevant, family support, networking, debt, scholarships, grants, risk, and the degree of independence.

This spreadsheet would have the sole purpose of providing information. It would not be used to either promote a particular course of action nor to suggest that a freshman typically knows his exact future path. Instead the spreadsheet would be used as a reference point, perhaps with a scheduled check-in date, e.g. every six months as a freshman or sophomore, every three months as a junior and every two months as a senior.

The guidance counselor would use the student’s spreadsheet commentary to enhance the latter’s dialogue with the counselor, a marked improvement over current practice.

Such a combination of changes could produce a more thoughtful, smoother decision-making process, distinctly different from today’s stress-producing modus operandi when it comes to thinking about life after high school.

Moreover, there could be a collateral benefit of this attempt to somewhat de-stress the incremental education decision, namely a reduction in the high school drop-out rate. The proposed changes address some of the most common reasons behind the decision to prematurely exit high school:

Negative behavior, regardless of reason, that brings expulsion.

• Inadequate attention given to the marketable skills path to economic sustainability.
• An inferiority complex triggered by the message that “college is for everybody.”
• The family budget requires another wage-earner.
• Because of documentation issues, aspiration is diluted or defeated.

Within the category of higher education per se, in today’s environment of high tuition rates, burdensome debt levels for college graduates, and a persistently sluggish job market for recent graduates, a cooler look at the numbers is advantageous. While 70% of high school graduates pursue some type of incremental education, only 30% earn a four-year degree and 10% a two-year degree. Does it not therefore make even more sense to devote additional attention to all of the metrics of enhanced education, particularly those pertinent to the under-analyzed 60%.These thoughts are not laid out because of economic ignorance. There is full awareness that the lifetime income benefits of greater education are substantial: a Master’s degree-holder can earn twice what a high school diploma commands. To put the data another way, assuming a 40-year working life, the economic difference between a high school drop-out and a Bachelor’s is about $25,000 before taxes per year, unadjusted for debt. Obviously, this is a big differential.It is less clear that the steps from high school diploma to associates degree are life-changers; a foregone positive income differential of $10,000 per year before taxes could be acceptable to a person who develops a marketable skill in a much shorter period than is characteristic of college and incurs minimal debt in doing so. Note that oft-quoted income data does not usually provide a comparative calculation for earnings of individuals with marketable skills not directly tied to the level of educational attainment, e.g., those gained through apprenticeship programs.There are of course other benefits associated with more education: for example, a high school drop-out is three times as likely to be unemployed as an individual with a Bachelor’s degree or more. Unemployment rates for those with an Associate’s degree or who have only completed some college courses are roughly double those with a four-year degree or higher.

Muddying the analysis about the right path for a given student is that because of employer skepticism over the quality of education on the nation’s campuses and the pervasive penetration of technology in the workplace, there is a demand for greater academic credentials. These are estimates of workplace composition based on the education required (% of jobs):

1973                            2020E

• Bachelor’s degree or more                                16%                             35%
• Some college                                                    12                                30
• High school graduate                                        40                                24
• Less than high school                                        32                                12

The education world is in a state of change. Common Core standards (a good and necessary idea, poorly implemented), revised SAT, evaluations of teacher performance, scrutiny of college graduation rates, pressure to hold down college inflation, major concern over the level of student debt, and the advent of on-line courseware are all part of the current scene.Bringing all the macro and micro inputs together is not the point of this essay. And it is not to dissuade high schoolers from attending college. The financial attraction of this route speaks for itself; besides, college graduates smoke less, are healthier overall, and live longer. Instead, the suggestion of “One Goal…Multiple Paths” is to move away from the inadvertent message that a singular option fits all and, instead, seek to put in front of prospective high school drop-outs (including those who literally leave the school and those who mentally leave while still occupying a seat) clear and consistent information about different paths.

Better decision-making and planning should be the procedural goal of everybody concerned, from high school administrators to parents and students.

An Inarticulate Request for Reflection

This essay may be misunderstood and not totally well-received by some of the people I love.

Maybe my negative view on so many things in contemporary society is overriding common sense—

having family and friends is so precious how could one ever put them at risk.

Why would anybody think negatively about the American situation?

Could it be our rank in the world with respect to education. Or our total lack of both perceptiveness and plan when it comes to foreign policy, except for trade agreements that is (see God of consumption). Or our unwillingness to resolve the challenge of immigration and prepare for being a nation of multiple minorities. Or our losing battle with racism. Or our utter stupidity regarding gun control. Or our on-going, unsuccessful struggle with drug addiction. Or our distorted income and opportunity inequality. Or the fact that an important percentage of the workforce is making no more money than twenty years ago or more. 

Nah … everything is cool. This is the United States, the country that people gravitate to, not escape from, and with good reason.

**

The good people exiting the church go to work every day, brush and floss their teeth regularly, respect the flag and country, love their parents, and cherish their children ….and they are the problem. The good people see, at least on the surface, nothing negative or unsustainable in the relationship between how they live and the long list above of societal challenges.

They listen to the gentle push from the pulpit and take it for what it is—a friendly nudge to divert a few dollars from consumptive column A to “do-good” project B. There is no thought of it being, because it is not, a call to change the course of one’s life. When the orator of the day repeats the bromide that “all people are equal,” there is perhaps one parishioner in ten who both  believes and lives it. Instead, there is a shared disposition by all within the building to avoid that which is terribly difficult for everybody, including those outside the building, namely thinking through a personal response to any of the negatives outlined at the top.

This avoidance — of that which is unpleasant — is hidden by being securely in the hands of good people, in contrast to, e.g., drug or alcohol addiction, where the negative is classified, discussed, and confronted—with a clear change in behavior required to achieve sustainable health. (In this regard, note that the good people are purportedly healthy, thank you, leaving aside any comment on the implications of their medicine chests or therapy bills. And ignore the common thought that addictions in suburbia are treated as mostly health issues, whereas in the cities, the same behaviors are labeled as crimes.)

The definition of a good person here is unconnected to a philosophical or ethical point of view; highly intelligent people elsewhere write massive tomes on said subjects. Instead, it becomes a collection of absent negatives, i.e., non-addiction to drugs (the illegal variety anyway), alcohol (the leading legal drug), or sexual activity outside of the marriage. It should be added that the good people by definition (i.e., on paper, and not to be confused with reality) are non-discriminatory in their attitudes toward those of other ethnicities or persuasions.

For the sake of discussion, and to have some analytical fun with a few generalizations, assume the population is comprised of good people, 60%; irretrievably stupid ones, 10%; evil-doers, 15%; and hypocritical, 15%. (Some would argue persuasively that we are all in the last category.) Whatever the exact numbers, if there are many more good people than those under other headings and we still have the opening list of negatives, does this mean that (a) the good people do not want to invest time, energy, and/or money in bringing about the substantive changes needed in American life or (b) the good people truly are hypocritical or (c) evil individuals are so disproportionately powerful that it is fruitless for good people to attempt being change agents.

For sure, a high percentage of the good people, presumptively comfortable with their largely unexamined lives, are reluctant to embrace major change, whatever the specific issue. In contrast, consider another group, creative/artistic people: are they not less likely to be religious while being stereotypically associated with a disproportionate number of “bad” habits (e.g., how many great writers have gone through phases of being alcoholics), and yet, are they not more apt to be change agents.

A third sector, that of business, quite often has its practitioners clustered in the hypocritical column, their workplace amorality often coupled with piety elsewhere. However, in fairness, if not for the entrepreneurial, inventor category of business people, the world would still be characterized by some blend of long work hours (making 9am-5pm sameness seem like a walk in the park) and short lives. Such individuals make their own environments, which admittedly are often costly in terms of personal relationships, including within the family. In this sense, they are similar to many in the creative/artistic category.

A fourth category, that of advocates, is excluded here, as by definition, those individuals seek to be change agents. Perhaps the necessity for legal redress is an impediment to a grouping of overlapping issues, but unfortunately the targets for change are often single issues. Rather like pick your poison and seek to eradicate it — whether it be capital punishment or anti-gay discrimination or impossibly low minimum wages – without the handicap of having to formulate a comprehensive philosophy.

Where in this confusing picture are the theoreticians of a big picture debate: e.g., consumption as central to life versus whatever might be considered an alternative. Is there a philosophy which tackles this overriding challenge while mixing together the many attractive elements of American society: rule of law (particularly property rights), free speech, an opportunity to make mistakes and not be penalized generationally, the relative ease of establishing a business, the chance to rise or fall that is still more on one’s own merit than is true in the majority of countries from which immigrants come, and a level of diversity which puts other countries to shame.

The perception by good people of individual politicians, who naively might be expected to be involved in discussions of major philosophical import, almost never as initiators but as followers when they pick up the scent of success at the polls, instead is along the lines of, “my representative might be okay, but yours is a crook/buffoon/fool, etc.” The more strident would argue they all are borderline thieves, some deals taking place in broad daylight and some in backrooms with transactions brokered by highly-paid lobbyists. These characterizations stand regardless of which political party has won which election.

Meanwhile, the growing heterogeneity of the country’s population, inevitable regardless of the pushes and pulls (and politics) of immigration, will bring more diffusion of political power, more cultural uncertainty (tell me again what are the unique American values), and increased technological connectivity (which thus far should not be equated with improved communication, unless the latter is defined as knowing that your friend just changed his profile). Ethnicities will be so intermixed that maybe somebody intelligent will suggest dropping the enumeration of different skin colors. There will be questions as to the sustainability of having half the population continuing to own nothing – their assets are completely offset by their debts.

Will the good people, so-called “conservatives” and “liberals” alike, react to the long list of seemingly insurmountable problems by fleeing to physically gated communities. Already, residential segregation is high and growing, accompanied therein by even more commonality of political thought than heretofore.

Will the good people look inward, but without the deep dive which would reveal hypocrisy. Will the good people “act out” as the therapists say, endorsing politicians who do not recognize the underlying cause of many of the negatives listed at the outset—a consumerist country which has no other benchmarks than economic by which to measure its health. Will big picture questions continue to be avoided?

Maybe my emphasis on the ills of America will in time be considered a reasonably accurate picture, but ultimately only relevant to a defined phase in our society. On the other hand, maybe the good people will not rise to the occasion and work to resolve, or at least ameliorate, the lengthy list of situations at the open. Maybe there will be a bloody confrontation as the sector of our society which has enjoyed uncontested power since the creation of the United States finds it no longer enjoys that luxury. In any event, the fundamental challenges of American society cannot be addressed without a changed approach by the good people.

At this point, it does not appear that the reluctance of the good people to address fundamental issues is beneficial, at least not when it comes to these three rather important measures of progress: is the economy better—not for the average person, even with the recent macro improvement; are people happy—the polls say not; are we at peace—you answer it.

There is a saying, “you know you are growing as a person when you feel slightly uncomfortable.” This essay is simply advocating that more good people become a touch uneasy, okay, more than a touch.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

No, we are not talking about an Easter song. Instead, the third day is that time in your family vacation when sometimes everyone is mad with each other, kids with kids, parents with parents, parents with kids–every combination possible. People fighting over the slightest annoyance, like a shovel in the sand–as if it was a matter of life or death, or whether to have lunch at 12:00 or 12:30, or play board game x versus y. Everyone becomes childish, even the children–wait, they are supposed to be children, not knowing about boundaries or the meaning of “no” unless these concepts are explained and enforced. As the arguments come to a slow boil and then erupt, crying people retreat to one of the many rooms in the large house by the beach, only to discover that the person they are arguing with is already there. “It is not raining in Tennessee” says one such combatant, a totally visible attempt to not talk about anything meaningful in order to avoid further stress.

“Yes,” the other person replies in a tone which says, “I really do not want to be dealing with you right now, I would much rather be in Tennessee instead of grey, dismal, wet (location deleted upon orders of the local Chamber of Commerce!). An outcome of this insanity is not being able to decide on anything except the need for tissues. And nobody can think or see clearly anyway, even after a good wipe. If you were to enter one of these “third days” as simply a friend dropping by as a surprise, you would be greeted by a storm of fake hellos and awfully nice behaviors. You would not see any kids around; they would have all been sent to their rooms. Later, the sparring partners stumble toward peace in our times, with hugs and mumbled apologies. But still an awkwardness fills the air, and there is a silent sweeping of the issues under the proverbial rug. Eventually, despite this nonsense, the wine bottle is uncooked, the dinner prepared, and everything returns to normal. It is family after all. Besides, the vacation ends tomorrow.

Very early the morning of the prospective departure, the oldest one of the bunch, who surprisingly had stayed almost completely clear of the vitriol, was able to recall a dream he had that night. With a torrential rain coming down a few feet from his bed, he put his dream to paper. It went like this: A number of squabbling family members were in a car; the aforementioned fellow was not driving. Eventually, he became so irritated with what was going on that he asked the car to be stopped. When it did so, he got out, but to his shock, the driver then left, to continue arguing presumably! He shook his fist in frustration, to no avail. Looking around, he noticed an old jalopy. It had no key and no gas, but he was able to get it to coast into town at the bottom of the hill. He attempted to make a phone call, only to be frustrated by his complete packing job of the night before–his wallet, a few bills and coins, and cell phone were all in his “carry-on,” which was in the departed “family” car.

As the senior member of the family sat stewing outside a little country cafe wondering about what should be his plan, a local resident came over and asked, “you know anything about that car behind the garage—it’s leaking fluid and all the people seem real mad?”

At that point, a loud clap of thunder and the sound of crackling lightning woke the patriarch from his dream. He thought about its meaning: Should he have intervened in the family arguments, risking adding fuel to the existing fire. Should he simply ignore the whole thing under the “this too will pass” theory of life. Or should the elder make sure that he always has his own car?!

bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

Part of The Belated Collection of Bob Howitt Essays, brought together because of overwhelming demand from myself and hereby distributed through technological devices not even conceivable at my birth.

Astute readers of his various posts will conclude the following, assuming that excessive consumption of distilled spirits has not destroyed their literary brain cells:

1. The guy has little talent for positive, upbeat prose, which is intriguing because his lifetime actions have been skewed to productive decisions in the field of educational assistance.
2. Given item (a), it better follow that his attacks against a wide variety of targets are written somewhat more effectively (see Matt Taibbi if you want real skill in this area).
3. Uncomfortable truths are not infrequently wrapped in what some may accurately discern as a language of respect, admiration, and even love—and those emotions are legitimate.

Whatever!

In this world, if you cannot laugh or cry, you must be addicted to something:

Drugs … money … football … the belief that America is God’s gift to the universe … alcohol … political correctness … sex … writing in place of direct human interaction … smartphones … futbol (especially if Hispanic) … dressing like a convict (urban African-American teenagers) … studying 24 hours a day (Asian) … Justin Bieber … Law & Order … Oprah Winfrey … guns …pornography … the idea that futurists really know how the next generation America will work: single-parent “families” as the norm, unaddressed income/wealth inquality, a completely overhauled education system (hopefully), and, most important, a nation of multiple minorities … McDonald’s French fries … Buddhism … dancing … shopping … cappuchino … astrology … yard sales … rap music … beauty … religion … the lottery … television … the Pope … laptops … coffee … global warming … eating large quantities of food … making lists (!)

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22

Person A in this case is myself, functioning as a funder, a quasi-counselor, and a consistent communicator. Person B is a student aspiring to higher education (in other situations, it could be an adult seeking assistance or the representative of an organization wanting help).

From an extensive conversation between Person A and Person B, the latter settles on a course of action for himself/herself. Person A thereafter is only to be involved to the extent desired by Person B. Person B unilaterally declines to proceed on the course of action he had committed to.

It has not proven fruitful for Person A to reach out continuously to push, prod, and provoke Person B into doing what the latter said he intended to do and what he was individually capable of doing (the scaffolding principle is not applicable here—there is no question about Person B’s ability (either individually or through collaboration with others readily available to him) to follow through on his previously defined course of action.

While Person A’s ultimate scorecard as a funder of aspiring students is driven by how many Persons B have accomplished their goals, because this is the basis of the initial interface between Person A and Person B, if Person B does not have the motivation to proceed on his end of the bargain, it is not productive for Person A to “chase.”

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22

Having been in attendance in 2014-15 at five FCB Barcelona matches at the famed facility of Camp Nou in Barcelona, it is time to pen a few observations, information already known to aficionados around the world and the two billion youngsters who right now are playing the world’s game:

The field is huge, which cannot be gleaned from television.

The specific skills are unreal—players do incredible things with the ball that you could not do with your hands. The different ways their bodies, excluding hands/arms, interact with the ball are endless in number and creativity.

Headers are not only concussion-inducing stops of free kicks coming straight to the noggin or attempts to redirect corner kicks into the net, but just as frequently are clever strategic passes in the run of play. [Watching one game played in a downpour, I remember from my high school soccer days, how heavy a soccer ball can become and how it jars the head even harder.]

Goalies are more involved than might be thought if one believed they are there simply to stop shots. They direct their defenders where to pass, and they either throw in a strategic fashion or kick the ball well past the midfield line or pass it short to one of his defenders.

The speed of players from end to end is impressive.

One of the many beauties of the game is the constant shifting from defense to offense. At the same time, the ability of a team to control possession time is usually associated with victory.

Often it appears the ball is on a string, such is the precision of open field passes.

The triangle offense is totally apparent, and originated before Phil Jackson hit the NBA.

Finishers are rare and their ability to put the ball in the net is disproportionately important because of the low number of goals which are scored.

Lesser players are conflicted. At times, it appears they are ignoring “good” scoring opportunities in order to get the ball to the finishers, who by definition are better at this objective. Other times, it appears the former are lusting for glory, to be garnered when their low probability shot somehow eludes the opposition’s keeper.

Top finishers are targets for physical abuse for sure, but Messi does not seem to hit the turf that much. Ronaldo, in contrast, is on his back more than Madonna., crying for a penalty like Madonna cries out for love.

The head of UEFA is recommending a 10-minute white card. While no details have been disclosed as to its usage (which the traditionalists will fight), these come to mind:

Excessive delays on corner kicks or throw-ins or not getting back 10 yards from a direct kick, extended arguing, celebrations which are political (orgiastic tackling of the goal-scorer is okay as is pointing heavenward even when it was an earthbound teammate who set things up with a nice pass). .

The Barcelona team is akin to the NBA’s San Antonio Spurs, but with bigger egos.

All of the fans at Camp Nou are some combination of coaches/critics.

I have read the offside rules, I have seen—many times—the rules enforced by the side linesmen who assist the referee. But I still do not thoroughly understand them. I do know one thing, however: if offside rules were abolished in the penalty box, there would be more scoring and Americans would be more likely to attend, which would mean more money, which would mean more likelihood of young people adopting the game as a possible career. None of this is going to happen of course.

P.S. A bar sign in Sitges, a coastal resort town a half-hour from Barcelona:

ON DAYS OF FUTBOL MATCHES, FIND OUT WHAT HOURS THE BAR IS OPEN BY CHECKING FACEBOOK OR CALLING THE BAR OR SEEING IT POSTED HERE.

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22

 

Once upon a time, a couple of decades ago, I took a stab at some predictive commentary about education. As you assess the credibility of my crystal ball, please keep in mind that my involvement in educational endeavors at that time was only a few years in duration, and, thank goodness, my awareness of all those education reform efforts which have come and gone was not first-hand.

 “The overriding characteristic which I envision is a greater array of widely-accepted educational options. Through legislative, judicial, and attitudinal changes, parents at all income levels will have become empowered to choose among the full menu of possibilities: home schooling, parochial schools, apprenticeships, nonsectarian private schools, public and private voucher programs, charter schools and the traditional public school system, which itself will have changed in terms of its modus operandi.

Every city with at least 100,000 people (and regional areas where feasible) will have an Educational Choice Resource and Referral Center, equipped with a computerized data bank and a small, knowledgeable staff. Parents desiring a print-out of schools that fit their desired characteristics will access the “Choice Center” at no charge. Funding will be generated primarily by a combination of dues remitted by every school that provides data on its educational program and fees paid by every service provider whose information is in the computer.

An ancillary but significant benefit of the above will be a dwindling of conversations that focus on organizational labels (e.g., do you go to a “charter” or a “private” school), to be replaced by increased discussion about educational matters, particularly academic outcomes and parental/student satisfaction.

Schools rightly will be identified as places of learning rather than collections of bricks and mortar. The “Entrepreneur High School” may be located at the community center or college, in a church basement, in empty retail space downtown or at the mall, or even in the vacated wing of an elementary school with reduced population.

Thematic “schools within schools” will proliferate. These will have different mixes of conventional and unconventional offerings, a veritable New Jersey diner array of options, with each school designed to provide an education which both meets certain broad-based requirements and is tailored to the individual. Fiscal, staffing, and management responsibilities will be school-based, allowing individual school leaders to negotiate for use of shared facilities based on their respective curricula and the number of students who have chosen their program. Since said mini-schools will be within the mission of the overall school, there will not be the hierarchical turf wars which heretofore have prevented this concept from   flourishing in heavily bureaucratic environments.

Islands of educational excellence created in the 1990’s will connect back to the mainland. These innovative schools needed first to be separate from the system that had stifled out-of-the-box thinking. With demonstrated success among the newer education providers and a fragmented overall “system”, structural antagonisms will decline in favor of cooperation. Proponents of the traditional school system will get their regulatory loads reduced, leading to more of the educational dollar being spent on and for the classroom, which in turn will give this sector a greater opportunity to emulate the above islands.

The educational legal battles over church-state relationships will be yesterday’s news, just as 1999 put the skids on counterproductive desegregation mandates. Minority and urban parents in particular will work hard to create strong neighborhood schools; busing will be left in the trash- bin of history’s failed social experiments. The U.S. Supreme Court will rule that when a parent uses his/her tax money to help his/her child obtain a non-religious education, even if that takes place in a sectarian setting, the federal government has not violated the church-state establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution.

More big-city mayors, actively recognizing the essential long-term linkage between education and sustainable community development, will support meaningful changes in the educational marketplace. They will not be seduced by either of the twin mirages that many people gravitate toward : the belief that incremental funding alone will elicit the objective of improved results and the thesis that educational reform can wring a substantial net cost reduction in the overall pre-K to grade 12 system.

Teacher tenure will be transformed into a contractual review system, with an increasingly lengthy job protection period as a teacher gains in competency, which no longer will be taken as synonymous with years of experience and degrees earned. There will be built-in professional development requirements emphasizing a master teacher concept, not attendance at workshops. These lead teachers will receive compensation significantly higher than at present. Bonus and other incentive plans will be more evident.

Teachers colleges will introduce more real-world exposure into their curricula. Their graduates will be required to demonstrate classroom management skills and in-depth knowledge in their subject areas prior to being certificated as teachers. At the same time as standards here will have been lifted, there will be more flexibility in the timing of when graduates must become certified to enter the classroom.

Alternative routes to•teaching and school leadership roles will be made easier. Representatives of the creative arts and scientific communities, refugees from corporate America and Wall Street, and plumbers and carpenters alike will be in the classrooms, sharing their expertise. Grandparents and other senior citizens will be omnipresent as they tell their “stories”, the ones not found on any computer chip, to students at every age level. In similar fashion, students will gain valuable insights by leaving their classrooms to go to diverse outside environments, e.g., as interns or community service volunteers.

More people will again realize and remind themselves that education truly does begin in the home and that television sets and computers are more properly perceived as potential supplemental aids to education than as substitute delivery mechanisms. There will be renewed emphasis on the combination of parents and books necessary to foster the single most critical educational capability: reading.

Computers will be even more ubiquitous. However, when no documentation is forthcoming to show that widespread computer access is furthering either the educational progress of young people in core subject areas or the development of critical thinking skills, there will be a renewed emphasis on original research and more time spent on developing the ability to write and speak well. Students will be required first to scour their libraries, those rooms with “real” books, and make inquisitive telephone calls to sources of background information and insight, before browsing the web.

There are undoubtedly some fearless predictions which have been overlooked and there has not been the space available to reiterate the compelling logic behind current buzz phrases like “higher standards” or “greater accountability,” but here’s hoping that a good fraction of the above ideas is converted from wish list to reality in the coming years.”

A look back: not too bad, maybe a solid B. As a non-techie, obviously I underestimated the “disruption” of iDevices. And edupolitics has continued to rear its ugly head.

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22