My ears still ring from US Ambassadors in Bolivia saying things like "we will accept any candidate for President other than Evo Morales" and "this government (Bolivia's) has no balls" (said by a woman ambassador). Working in Bolivia the last decade, my impression is that US programs were to buy the country away from the people and generate dependency on foreign aid. The programs generally were designed by experts from the USA, not the local people who needed them. That seemed to mirror the major errors of Johnson's welfare programs and be anti-democratic. Why not use processes such as the future search conference to identify programs that both the people want and experts believe might work? And why not invest what we have for anti-terrorism in real international development? That would generate friends, sympathizers, and true partners, wouldn't it?
I have worked as a teacher under No Child Left Behind. I think it should be re-named "Forget Excellence: Focus on the Minimal."
In the USA, we spend more money per person than any other country and achieve 43rd place in the world in life expectancy (see http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/ahr2007/comparisons.html). We are not cost effective? What's the problem? We leave 15% of the population, usually people who work, uninsured. Another 10% has someone in their family who is uninsured, decreasing their use of medical care. Also, the system is concerned with treating disease, much less so with preventing it. The result is expensive illness. I would prefer expensive health or, better, inexpensive health.
What's the solution? I could write one, but then many stakeholders would fight it. I think the solution is whole systems participative planning to achieve the results we all will accept. If politics is the art of the feasible, then methods like the future search conference and the appreciative inquiry summit (google them) could guide us. All stakeholders need to be represented. Reach decisions through process. In the end, only do what we all agree to. These are the rules I have seen used that produce good results time after time. Isn't it time we gave it a try?
Systems theory says things happen because of the system that exists. For instance, we have oxygen because of the flora-- the algae, trees, and other plants. Yet currently in education, Congress has posited that education will occur due to teachers and administrators. It seems they have missed a lot of the system: the students, parents, libraries, social services, churches, voluntary agencies, rec department, businesses, and the Justice system. At present, school systems in my area have strategic planning meetings with teachers, administrators, specialists, and a few parents. They commonly leave out the rest of the system. No wonder education isn't very effective.
Whole systems methodologies (e.g., future search conference, appreciative inquiry summit, open space technology) guide systems in developing effective change efforts. Few school systems use them, although they have been documented in "Future Search in School District Change: Connection, Community, and Results" by Schweitz et al. These methods are effective, democratic, insist on diversity, and produce state of the art results. Why not use them to help make the USA a leader in public education?
