Trump and Ignorance

Why do we treat Donald J Trump, now the guaranteed nominee of the GOP for US President, as if he is a rational, sane and intelligent human?

All the evidence points to the fact that he is a narcissistic, ego-centric, extroverted bully who has a reprehensible level of knowledge about the world, about his own country and about Government. He seems unaware of simple things, like respect, courtesy, and compassion and is seemingly incapable of understanding complex things like energy markets, science, foreign policy or economics.

He looks to be a successful business man, but in this claim he is also delusional. He makes claims about his business acumen which are nonsensical – like his net worth (much less than publicly stated), his Art of the Deal being the “best-selling business book of all time” (nowhere near close), his ability to enter and conquer new markets (string of business failures), his avoidance of tax, his use of foreign workers and his profiting from companies he publicly derides. He is successful in some things, of this there is no doubt, but not everything he touches turns to gold.

He is a dangerous man. So far he has promised to break international treaties (NAFTA, WTO and the Paris Climate Change Agreement), actively intervene in markets (restore coal jobs), build a “beautiful” wall which Mexico will pay for (not going to happen), deport 11.5 million Mexicans, ban Muslims from entering the country (with a few exceptions for Muslims he likes), criminalize abortion, raise the minimum wage while at the same time lowering taxes on the rich, charge countries the full costs of American troops defending American interests on their land, pay for his supporters legal fees if they are charged with assaulting those who oppose him. This week he denied that California has a drought problem – preferring instead to buy into conspiracy theories that the Government of California is denying the flow of water (where does he think they are hiding it?) to much-needed areas. Trump is, let's say this out loud, an ignorant and dangerous person.

But the press treats all of his statements as if he were a serious thinker. They place him against Noam Chomsky and treat their statements as if they were on the same level. They are not.

Trump is ignorant, not just about social sensibility (just follow his twitter feed), but of how government works, the role and limits of the Presidency of the United States, how energy markets work, how treaties work, the law, science ..one could go on. It is if he was a petulant teenager who had missed a lot of schooling while partying and having a good time who we are now expected to treat with the seriousness of a great philosopher.

And then we get to the nub of the issue. He is a Mussolini figure – doing for the US what Mussolini did for Italy before World War II. Giving hope, through ignorance, appeals to raw emotions and offers of action which could not possibly lead to good outcomes. He is feeding on and adding to anger, passions and a sense of lost identity which many Americans truly feel.

“Make America Great Again” is his slogan. He has offered a set of suggested actions which will make America poor again, a laughing stock and a place which many smart people feel not only uncomfortable staying in but unwelcome. Thinking will not be encouraged – more likely prosecuted. One thing for sure – Trump will do well for himself. It is actually all he cares about.

What is even more disturbing is that a growingly angry American electorate are more than likely to elect this bigot to the Presidency. It will not be the first time someone with a very high General Ignorance score has occupied the Oval Office, but it will be the first time someone has done so in an age where scrutiny is intense and every word uttered can be analyzed to death. He will be subject to global abuse and shaming, which will just make him angry.

Trump will not be a happy President – he will spend most of his time frustrated, angry and threatening legal action. I also suspect that impeachment will never be far from the lips of some members of Congress. It will be especially difficult for him if, as some suspect, the GOP loses control of congress.

Trump will not make American great again. Trump will make Trump rich again. That seems to me to be the prime agenda.

5 Bold Actions for Our Minister of Education

Our Minister of Education, Hon David Eggen, did something interesting this last week. He spent several days with teachers, Principals and system leaders at the Alberta Teachers Association uLead event in Banff. He also offered a workshop and spoke on a panel (with the Minister from New South Wales) about the future. He spoke about the sovereignty of the profession and the work of school boards. He spoke of equity and rationalized his campaign for LGTBQ community as part of this equity struggle. He is clearly passionate about the role and a compassionate man. He deserves to be successful.

But I have doubts – about his focus, his capacity to be bold and about the speed at which he is willing to work. I have five suggestions for bold, aligned and creative actions which would show courageous yet relevant leadership for our schools:

1.      Immediately announce the end to the Grade 3 SLA’s and the end of the Provincial PAT’s before the next election. Move to a sampling system of outcome assessment, rotating across all subjects, not just maths, literacy, and science. Withdraw from PISA, TIMMS, and other international assessment and demonstrate faith and commitment to rich accountability and the profession. These actions will signal both our confidence in our work as well as a recognition that standardized testing has little to do with the work of schools and teachers
2.      Rescind the Ministerial order related to curriculum. It's a nonsense and gets in the way. Adopt a “less is more” approach to curriculum and partner with the specialist councils of the ATA to secure curriculum development. See the work as simplifying the curriculum while enabling the work of the profession to reflect local conditions.  Focus not on workforce competencies but on a broad, liberal education and creativity.
3.     Reduce the number of school boards, which are no longer able to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Move to regional boards. End the requirement that Superintendents, appointed by Boards, should also require the approval of the Minister. Why does a population of less than 5 million need so much infrastructure and so many "sunshine" leaders?
4.      Transfer full responsibility for the profession – certification, review, discipline, and recertification – to the profession. Treat teachers like Doctors and elevate their status.
5.      Reduce the size of the Ministry from its 700+ personnel to no more that 250, signaling that the role of the Ministry is to support and enable, not to manage and control. Stop it getting in the way of the work of schools.

We need to recognize that the infrastructure of control and accountability was built for a different time. It is time to change. Be bold, Minister. Do this work now.

Privatizing the University and the GERM

The Government of the UK is consulting widely on the future of higher education. They have issued a green paper (a discussion document reflecting what they are “minded” to do) and are gathering feedback. You can read the green paper online here.

One feature of this is to make it easier for a new entrant to become a degree granting institution. This is what Universities UK says about this:

The Green Paper signals a strong desire to create more competition, particularly through new market entrants and to streamline or speed up processes. The proposals cover what is a complex set of mechanisms around Degree Awarding Powers, University Title and designation processes.  The main objective is to create a single route which has clear steps, is appropriately risk based and can ‘manage’ new providers into the system in an effective way (and indeed manage providers out through market exit if they are failing). The system is clearly complex and needs to be looked at, and the proposed competition and diversity these changes could bring is good for students and institutions. These proposals will, however, require extremely careful scrutiny so that they don’t inadvertently lead to a lowering of the necessary high entry requirements to higher education. Streamlining and speeding up processes where possible yes, but let’s not undermine public and student confidence. Recent experience suggests that the risks of getting this wrong can be significant.

There is a helpful summary of reactions to the Green Paper here.

The growth of private players in education in the UK is a clear part of the neo-liberal agenda. Its based on an idea that the quality of education will improve if there is market based competition for students, programs and outcomes.  The divestment of public education to the private sector, with an interim move into non-profits before rent-seeking and profit corporations become legal, has occurred in the K-12 system in the UK. The development of academies and free schools represents a sign that the neo-liberal agenda – what my colleague Pasi Sahlberg at Harvard calls the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) – is alive and well. What this green paper seeks to do is to infect higher education with this GERM.

There is no convincing evidence anyone can show that the marketization and privatization of education produces either improved learning outcomes, innovation or higher levels of student engagement. Indeed, Diane Ravitch was able to demonstrate that the opposite occurs, at least in school systems.

Private online higher education providers, such as the University of Phoenix (owned by the Apollo Group), are experiencing difficulties. The largest U.S. for-profit educator has lost more than half of its students during the past five years, ending its fiscal first quarter with 227,400 enrolled students compared with 458,600 in early 2010. Its operating loss in this forst quarter was $45.2 million. There is then the case of Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit rival of University of Phoenix, which collapsed in 2014 amid lawsuits and slumping enrollment.

Moody’s Investors Service, which rates over 500 universities in the U.S., including 230 four-year public schools and close to 275 private colleges and universities, found that public institutions have a total of $125 billion in outstanding debt. Private college/university debt stands at $85 billion. Moody’s is also forecasting that operating revenue growth will slow below 3 percent, at the same time that expenses are expected to increase at around 7%. Although state government funding is growing modestly, it is still below pre-recession levels and now comes with a lot of strings attached.

Pearson Corporation, another major player in private education, just laid off some 4,000 staff in addition to the 4,000 in laid off in 2014. It is not securing the kind of revenues it expected from a strategy of being the largest private education “player” in the world.  Pearson is everywhere in education, both in terms of all levels of education and all regions of the world. While they may be struggling to deliver shareholder value at this time, there can be no doubt that the company has a significant influence in shaping thinking about the future of education and its current practice. Pearson suggests that the social impact of their strategy is about making quality learning available at low costs – whether it is essential skills or advanced learning – globally in an effective and efficient way. We will see. So far they are not doing well with textbook sales, sales of their assessment services or other developments.

Higher education students are a seductive prize for new providers, but the quality assurance regimes, regulatory hurdles and competition is tough. Rather than adopt this neo-liberal agenda, would it not be better to invest in public higher education, increase collaboration and co-operation and enable and encourage innovation in public provision?