SpEd-ucation

Obama having finally gotten the heath care bill passed is on to his next target - education. Largely a response to the fact that America has fallen way behind in the brain game and as a course correction to No Child Left Behind, the administration is proposing sweeping changes in how States administer education.

Brain Drain
Compared to the rest of the developed world, we are breeding retards. In science, we are 16th to 21st depending on the study. In math, we are 23rd to 25th. In reading, its anyone's guess because the testing agency botched the survey. However in 2003 we were 15 out of 29 . And in the most important category, problem solving, we are 29th!

29th. One of the most resource rich countries in the world is 29th in figuring it's way out of a wet paper bag. Out-thunk by 28 other countries, many with only a fraction of the means of the US. And we wonder why debts and deficits soar. Economies and health tank. Why little Johnny can't get off the couch or stay out of jail. Why little Sally ate herself into the best parking space in the lot.

The New Behind
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) we are now realizing was a colossal charlie foxtrot. Essentially a civil rights bill, NCLB was a response to academic achievement gaps between minority kids and white kids. Blacks and Latinos were scoring at a fraction of whites in all areas. 30 years after integration something was clearly amiss and NCLB aimed at righting the discrepancy. Bush's strategy was to strong-arm the States into narrowing the gap by threatening access to Federal dollars. And it worked.

Sorta. The gap narrowed. Drop-out rates declined. But were kids more motivated? Smarter? More prepared for college or life after high school? Better able to compete at home or abroad?

Hardly. Although States did begin requiring continuing education for teachers, mandating how-to-teach workshops or training in effective student management their most expedient response was to lower the bar. Standards were reduced and to ensure better performance on the new benchmarks - math, reading and test training, jettisoned was a good part of the traditional curriculum. Problem solved. Federal dollar stream preserved.

NCLB left the brightest students bored whilst struggling students continued to struggle towards a still unattainable benchmark. The REAL result: high school seniors as a whole were less developed, had less breadth of understanding and were less prepared for college than before NCLB. They were the new behind. Gap closed.

Theory Fail
Whilst the center of the bell curve shifted south, something quite extraordinary and counter-cyclical was emerging: a new class of student. One who disproved the theory that a student is only as good as their teacher, their school, their principal, the amount of resources available, the quality of the physical environment, their classmates, their class size or the amount of money spent on constructing and maintaining their education apparatus. This new student defied all odds, all expectations. In many cases defied severe economic disadvantage.

These students were scoring in the 99 percentile. Ghetto school or great school, they were blowing curves, shattering paradigms, standing as valedictorians, winning national science fairs and bees, scoring 2,400 on the SAT, taking the grand prize at international competitions...leaving everyone else including their teachers in a trail of intellectual dust. Educators scratched their heads. Civil rights activists looked the other way. College recruiters lined up. Who are these wonder-kids?

They of course are the Asians. Immigrants or their descendants. Minorities but not really. Driven. Focused. Strategic. On a mission. This anomalous group has given new meaning to NCLB. Talk about gap.

Rice Not Wheat
Of course the Asian wave got the attention of just about anybody interested in improving our education system. How could 4% of the population account for 25% of the slots in Ivy League schools. Why are they so consistent regardless of their economic status? How can the Asian kid go to a failing school with inept teachers and little resource and still out perform non-Asians at prestigious private schools? These kids aren't operating with higher IQs but what gives them such a huge advantage? What makes these kids tick?

Studies were commissioned and the greatest education minds in the country mobilized around this phenomenon. Into the crucible went the Asian student. Analysis occurred from every angle. Limiting reagents were added and subtracted. Venn diagrams constructed. Litmus tests applied.

And what emerged as the single most important and profound factor in the success of these students, of this class of students? Definitely a-snake-it-woulda-bit-you answer... a platitude... warmer... yep, you guessed it.

Parents! Period. Parents, parents, parents. Parent push. Parent owning responsibility. Parent involvement. Parent prioritization. Parent value iteration. Parent carrots. Parent sticks. Parent psychology. Parent cunning. Parent puppeteering. Parent partnership. Parent-in-your-face. Day in. Day out. Parents, parents, parents. Parenting.

The core of their belief: it's not the responsibility of the school or the teacher or the government or society to educate the child. It's the parents job. The other stuff, the professionals, the whole architectural apparatus, the bells and gimmicks - all mis-en-scene. Revolutionary in a WTF kinda way I know. But it's that one tiny bit of thinking that makes all the difference. In a culture where your ancestors grew rice - a year around affair - it's relentlessly boring to grow seasonal wheat. Why crack the book once a week when you can crack it several times a day.

Accountable?
Which brings us back around to Obama's education reform. From his webpage:

"We need to stop paying lip service to public education, and start holding communities, administrators, teachers, parents and students accountable."

How exactly do you hold any one of these entities accountable? The definition of the word 'accountable' is: subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable. Are you going to make them testify before congress on why they didn't pack a nutritious lunch for lil Sally? Keep a journal? Submit progress reports? Write on the blackboard 1,000 times, "I will not let my kid watch 7 hours of TV a day'. Yes judge I was watching porn instead of helping little Tommy with his homework and offering motivational support. You gonna sue them for their kid flunking english?

Or by 'accountable' do you mean, dangle the purse like Bush? Really? More old-skool punitive response? Sounds tough. Oh wait you state in Solution 1 punishment = bad. Never mind. And what about your 3 solutions? Nary a mention of 'incentivizing' parents to take responsibility. Chatter about an army of new teachers. As if. Did you not read the Asian report?

How about this.: If you're truly serious about preparing kids for college, regaining a respectable standing in the brain game, raising standards, increasing graduation rates, raising test scores and benchmarks, putting us back on the R&D map, why not apply the Asian model? Which really, is no more Asian than it is common sense. As it wasn't too long ago we harbored similar motivations and method.

Otherwise, it sounds like more lip service.

Toxic Ass-Sits (sic :-()

I have a fairly healthy lifestyle. I don't smoke, do drugs, ingest caffeine or consume much highly processed, marginally nutritional food. I workout regularly, get good sleep and otherwise am conscious about maintaining a good diet and healthy lifestyle. My annual physicals affirm my choices: cholesterol, blood pressure and all other indicators are in the solid healthy range.

My health is not an accident, it's a conscious lifestyle decision. And I'm not alone. There are more than a few uber-healthy folks in my neighborhood and quite a few others spread across this land. Sadly though, we are a minority - the balance being at-risk for smoking and weight-related diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Smoking alone kills 1 in 5 adult males.

Fine, everybody makes their choices. What is not fine however is when the healthy are forced to subsidize the costs of the those who repeatedly make high risk / cost lifestyle decisions. Yet this has been the model since the 1930s.

Whole Greater Than Sum of Parts versus Weak Link

The group model is predicated on the belief the aggregate or collective is much stronger than its individual constituents - a tribe or team is more powerful and therefore has a higher survival / sustainability coefficient than the individual. Those more fortunate, either by design or inheritance, should help the less fortunate in order to maintain the collective tribal bar and keep that subset of the species moving forward. It's a good theory and quite arguably, one that has hastened evolution.

Tribes establish rules in order to maintain a group performance standard: be it defending its borders, competing for trade, mining its internal resources or acquiring external ones. Mechanisms within the tribe reward good decision-making and penalize bad. When elements counter to the tribe's charter arise, they are suppressed or eliminated rendering a more cohesive whole. This is pretty much how society has advanced to its modern state. Other models are possible but not likely given our evolutionary stage.

Modern health insurance was originally conceived to reduce competition among hospitals offering pre-paid plans. Odd, as anti-trust laws generally prevent this kind of reduction. Nevertheless the concept took hold and initially benefited both consumer and provider. But more importantly, it benefited society. Lifespan increased, those marginalized by poor health became more productive, financial destitution from catastrophic illness was reduced and so on. We became a stronger tribe as resources and energies were distributed more evenly and more strategically among the afflicted. Group health insurance seemed like a pretty good bang for the buck in our march forward.

Such a shared risk / benefit model like health insurance generally works quite well in mitigating anomaly induced stress on a social unit. However as anomalies increase and the cost to deal with the anomalies increases, the system can become over-stressed, in fact burdened to the point where evolution is jepordized.

There may be some formula that describes the exact breakpoint where the shared risk / benefit model collapses but in the case of heath insurance we seem to have reached it as more is being extracted from the system than can be supplied to maintain it. Of course one of the symptoms of the stress and breakdown of the model is social unease and agitation to restore balance. And this is precisely where we find ourselves today.

Divide and Conquer

Part of the solution may be found in recent precedent. When financial systems began unraveling in the 3rd quarter of 2008, 'toxic assets', liabilities actually, were identified and separated out of the portfolio. The general thinking was this could mitigate contamination and guilty-by-association effects. Plus its easier to deal with like kinds. The segregated liabilities could be managed more effectively and net loss minimized. This is not a new strategy as we have been using it both individually and collectively since we started walking up-right. From the pile of clutter on the corner of desk to garage sales, the strategy of divide and conquer is ubiquitous.

Of course you know where this is going. Why not separate out the 'liabilities' and deal with them as a separate group? If you choose to repeatedly indulge in health compromising behaviors, you get your own group. Smoke? Obese? Bad diet? Repeat seatbelt violations? Not a problem. But you're in the wrong line. What you want is the 'At Risk' line. Yes I know, it's more expensive as not only will you be mandated by law to purchase insurance but your premium costs will be based on YOUR 'At Risk' group only. Ouch I know.

Oh, and you folks whose annual physical exams and bloodwork demonstrate you are choosing health-promoting decisions? Congrats, there is no line. However, if you feel you need to underwrite your fears, your premium cost will be derived from the 'Healthy' group. Yeah a bargain ey? The choice is yours.

Line Dance

It is very simple to draw the line. In fact the line has been drawn and corroborated by plenty already including the AMA the CDC and others with a vested interest in our collective health. Cholesterol above 200? Get in line. What, borderline you protest? No dice, you are at risk. When your levels have dropped for 6 months you can reapply to the Healthy group...Next. BMI above 30? Get in line...Next? Blood pressure above 140/90? Get in line...

The beauty of such a system is twofold. First, the healthy are not penalized. Under the current model the benefit from my good decisions is being spent on the loss from your bad decisions. Second, the At-Risk group is being penalized by significantly higher costs which impacts their lifestyle. Add in social stigma, choice reduction and other behavior modifying forces and the upshot is there is now more incentive to make healthy choices. Behavior modification is easier to achieve with a more heterogeneous group especially when combined with assist mechanisms like Patient Centered Medical Home.

The ultimate question however is: does this advance us as a tribe? Are we collectively brighter, stronger and more capable? Does segregation of risk ultimately render a higher average standard of living? Does division result in a higher GNP, GNH (happiness), GNC (creativity) ? Does it save money? Is it a more effective apparatus for increasing collective health? Does it ameliorate the burden on those most capable to advance society? I believe the answer is YES.